1
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This Due Diligence Review for Veolia ES Solid Waste (Veolia) active landfills was prepared to assist Star Atlantic Waste Holdings, LP (Star Atlantic) with preparation of their bid to purchase the stock of Veolia.
As requested by Star Atlantic, Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC (Cornerstone) in cooperation with Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc. (HHNT) reviewed the documentation provided by Veolia on the Merrill Datasite and anonymously
accessed public records to evaluate these facilities, with a particular focus on the projected future capital costs associated with new cell construction, landfill closure and post-closure care. Cornerstone was unable to confirm whether the
documentation provided by Veolia presented a comprehensive view of the subject facilities but the information appeared adequate for the intended purpose. Although site visits, site manager interviews, and regulatory agency interviews were
anticipated to be part of this evaluation, Veolia has not granted permission to do so at this time. In addition, this work has been subject to confidentiality agreements with both Star Atlantic and Veolia. Thus this evaluation was limited to review
of data as described above. The reviews of the active landfills of Veolia are included in four volumes grouped geographically as follows: Wisconsin and Minnesota Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Missouri Pennsylvania Georgia, Alabama,
Florida and the Bahamas Each landfill is presented as a separate section of the respective report. In addition, each landfill has an appendix containing a general site illustration identifying key site features and a summary table summarizing
Veolias construction projections from 2011 and 2012 along with Cornerstones recommendations for anticipated costs and timing of projects (which may or may not agree with those projected by Veolia). Section 1.2 below presents key
findings and issues for the landfills contained within this volume.

1.2 Key
Findings and Issues Landfill Significant Liability Issues/Other Site Issues Recommendations Greentree Outstanding/Pending NOVsNPDES Confirm Status in SPA and Leachate Storage Schedules Greentree Increases to Cost Projections are Advise Star
AtlanticRecommended More industry-standard estimates have been provided 111 BH Appendix to this report. Greentree Waste Density used to project future Advise Star Atlanticlife higher than normal Actual waste types accepted in the future
(as well as operational methods) will have a significant effect on in-place density which has a direct effect on site life projections and timing for new cell development projects. Lancaster Veolia waste acceptance view is Advise Star
Atlanticsignificantly reduced from 2011 Use lower waste (1,000 tons per day) to 2012 (500 tons projections or identify per day). additional tons for this facility. Lancaster Facility is subject to a 250 ton per year limit on wastes from
Lancaster County. Advise Star Atlantic. Lancaster Increases to Cost Projections are Advise Star AtlanticRecommended More industry-standard estimates have been provided in an Appendix to this report. Chestnut Valley Letter of Intent signed with
PPL to Determine status of develop a LFG to Energy facility, agreements to understand value. Chestnut Valley Unresolved Fayette County zoning Confirm Status in SPA violation Schedules Chestnut Valley Site was previously deep mined and Advise Star
Atlantic

strip
mined for coal. Apparently a more robust specification for geomembranes was designed to accommodate potential stability issues, however, no information was provided to enable detailed review. Chestnut Valley Increases to Cost Projections are Advise
Star AtlanticRecommended More industry-standard estimates have been provided in an Appendix to this report. Chestnut Valley- Waste Density used to project future Advise Star Atlanticlife higher than normal. Actual waste types accepted in
the future (as well as operational methods) will have a significant affect on in-place density which has a direct affect on site life projections and timing for new cell development projects.

2
GREENTREE LANDFILL 2.1 General Site Description The Greentree landfill is an active municipal solid waste landfill located at 635 Toby Road, Kersey, Pennsylvania. The landfill is located on a 1,453.90 acre property which includes a currently
permitted solid waste disposal area of 335.60 acres, of which 90.5 acres is currently closed and in Post-Closure, and 245.1 acres is in operation. The Landfill is permitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Permit
No. 101397. The landfill is currently owned and operated by Veolia Environmental ServicesSolid Waste (VES-SW). According to VES-SW Historic Waste Intake Reports, the average waste intake over the last four years is 984,366 tons (with a
high of 1,102,245 tons in 2008 and a low of 879,260 tons in 2009). An aerial photograph depicting key site features is presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Key Documents Reviewed Landfill Profile Sheet, January 2012 Monitoring well Analytical reports,
prepared by Veolia ES, 2011 Form 19 Municipal Waste Landfill Quarterly and Annual Water quality Analysis, Dated 12/7/2-11 Area 2 Expansion Drawings, prepared by Blasosky Associates, Inc., Dated October 2006. Form 50 Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate
Analyses, Dated 6/7/2011 Air Quality ProgramInspection report, Dated 9/1/2011 Environmental Due Diligence Report, prepared by Almes & Associates, Inc. Landfill Evaluation Report, prepared by Golder Associates, Dated April 20,
2012 Form 1 Facility Plan, 2/2007 Veolia ES Greentree Landfill 2012 Airspace Calculations, 5/11/2012 Construction Cost Estimates 2012 2.3 Permits 2.3.1 Existing The current facility operating permit (Permit No. 101397) was issued on
December 8, 2008 and will expire on December 8, 2018. The permits and licenses that the Greentree facility has obtained may be summarized as follows: 2-1

2.4 Area,
Airspace, and Soil Balance 2.4.1 Area The total property area encompasses 1,453.9 acres which includes a waste disposal area of 335.6 acres. The original landfill area of 90.5 acres is closed and in Post-Closure and acres are in operation.
Currently, there are 131.3 acres of baseliner remaining to be constructed (as of 12/31/2012) and 200.5 acres that will receive final cover construction in the future. Airspace The total permitted airspace for the landfill is 51,970,792 cubic yards.
As of the last aerial topographic survey, dated 3/6/2012, the remaining permitted space is 35.048,521 cubic yards as reported in the 2012 Annual Airspace Calculations. Based on a comparison of the 4/2/2011 and 3/6/2012 topographic surveys, the
annual waste density was calculated to be 2,415 pounds per cubic yard. This density is significantly higher than industry standard. The site does accept drill cuttings from Marcellus shale which would contribute to an increase in waste density over
typical municipal solid waste. Long term, Cornerstone does not believe that the waste density can be sustained at this level and as natural gas development activities wane, the density will likely revert to lower, pre-natural gas drilling spoil
rates. In projecting the remaining life of the landfill, a waste density of 2,100 pounds per cubic yard was used. Assuming 3,200 tons per day, 307 filling days per year, the estimated remaining site life from the 2012 survey date has been reported
as 37.5 years. The waste intake rate of 3,200 tons per year is approximately the average rate for the past four years, though it is higher than the actual waste acceptance rate over the past year. Although this waste density is lower than last
years reported waste density, sustaining high waste densities will likely be directly tied to the level of natural gas drilling activity in the region. We recommend that a lower, more conservative waste density be utilized for long-term site
life projections. 2.4.3 Soil Balance Detailed soil balance information including quantities and types of soil available on site is not available. There are several borrow areas on site which, along with materials obtained during cell excavation, are
used to provide daily and intermediate cover, structural fill, final cover soil, low permeability soil, and protective cover aggregate. Aggregate material is manufactured from excavation of bedrock materials during cell construction, 2-4

The Form
1Facility Plan for the site states The quantity, quality and availability of acceptable on-site soils to be used as cover material and liner system construction material are discussed in detail in the revised Form F, The majority of
cover soil will also be obtained from sources within the permit boundary. However, off-site borrow sources for low permeability soils, aggregate materials and a portion of the cover soil will be necessary at least in part. Form J was not
provided for review, therefore, it cannot be determined the quantity of soil that will need to be imported. The unit costs for the various soils in the cost estimates appears to be constant, therefore, it does not appear that increased expenditure
for the purchase of off-site soil has been included. 2.5 Liner and Cover System Information provided in the Area 2 Expansion, Phase I/II Drawings, prepared by Blazosky Associated, Inc, Dated October 2006 indicate that the permitted base
liner systems for the facility (from top to bottom) includes: 12-inch leachate collection soil layer Geotextile 60 mil HDPE primary geomembrane 2 -foot low permeability soil layer Drainage composite layer (leachate detection zone) 60 mil HDPE
secondary geomembrane 6-inch soil subbase The final cover system (from top to bottom) may be summarized as follows: 24-inch cover soil layer Drainage composite layer 40 mil geomembrane 12-inch intermediate cover soil layer 2.6 Landfill Gas System /
Landfill Gas to Energy The facility has installed a landfill gas collection and control system. The system consists of a landfill gas extraction wells and a recovery piping system, an enclosed ground flare, and a landfill gas cleaning plant. The
landfill gas cleaning plant processes raw landfill gas to produce methane rich high BTU gas and low methane, high carbon dioxide off-gas. The resulting high-BTU pipeline quality gas is added to an interstate natural gas pipeline. 2-5

2.7
Environmental Monitoring The facility conducts environmental monitoring in accordance with the operating permit, including air quality, stormwater, groundwater, and leachate. Monitoring is described in the following sections of this report. 2.7.1
Hydrogeology and Groundwater The ground water monitoring network at the facility consists of 13 monitoring wells and one spring at the closed landfill area (original landfill) and 16 monitoring wells at the expansion area (expansion landfill) which
are sampled on a quarterly basis by Fairway Laboratories. Analytical testing of the samples was performed by Analytical Services of Brockway, Pa. In 2011 reports by Veolia Environmental Services indicated detections of metals above the Act 2
drinking water levels. These elevated parameters included dissolved manganese, total cobalt, nickel, and dissolved arsenic from well at the original landfill and elevated manganese, nickel, beryllium and cobalt at the expansion landfill. The Due
Diligence report prepared in 1997 by Almes & Associates stated that a groundwater abatement program consisting of a pump and treat system was installed in 1992 to treat volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in the vicinity of the old
90.5 acre landfill. Based on the evaluation by Almes, it appeared that there had been progressive improvement in the quality of the water samples taken from abatement wells and as such the plan appeared to be working. At the time of the report,
Almes noted that BFI had initiated discussions with PADEP to discontinue the pump and treat system. This abatement system is not discussed in the more recent data provided to Cornerstone and it is not clear if it was discontinued. 2.7.2 Landfill Gas
Probes/Locations Landfill gas is monitored at the facility on a monthly basis. Landfill gas is monitored at 20 locations around the facility, including the site buildings (i.e., check station, shop and office) and 17 locations appear to be gas
probes around the perimeter of the landfill. The percent LEL and percent combustible gas are monitored at each of the 20 locations. During 2011 all readings were 0.00 (non-detect). 2.7.3 Stormwater The facilities storm water discharges are covered
under the Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Requirements for Industrial Wastewater Facilities (NPDES Permit No. PA0103446). Sampling of stormwater discharge from the outfall of 15 Sediment
basins is performed monthly. In June 2011, a NOV was issued by PADEP for an off-site release of leachate that flowed 2-6

off the
landfill into a sediment basin that discharged off-site. The site reached an agreement with PADEP ($7,500 fine). This NOV is fully resolved. 2.7.4 Air and Landfill Gas The Veolia ES Greentree Landfill is subject to the National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Landfill NESHAP40 CFR 63 Subpart AAAA). In 2011, Veolia ES reported that the actions taken at the facility were consistent with the approved Semiannual Startup, Shutdown,
Malfunction (SMM) Plan for the facility. 2.8 Compliance History Based on the information provided and reviewed, the facility appears to be in general compliance with applicable regulations. However, in 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 the PADEP
issued 3 Notice of Violations. These violations included, off-site release of leachate into waters of the Commonwealth, exceeding permitted limits on NPDES permit, and exceeding leachate storage limits. These violations are in the resolution process
with PADEP. The following are indicated as pending by Veolia (1.3.1.1 Violation History): A NOV was issued by the PADEP 1/13/12 for exceeding effluent discharge limits from the WWTP, in violation of the site NPDES permit. It was noted by PADEP that
the Department intended to propse a Consent Order and Agreement of Veolia to resolve the violations. The site is preparing a compliance schedule and following up with PADEP. A NOV was issued by the PADEP 2/13/12 for leachate storage exceeding
capacity. A NOV was issued on 3/9/12 for failure to follow the approved Leachate Treatment Plan. 2.9 Capital Expenditures and Closure / Post Closure Costs Included as Appendix A is a comparison of recent assessments prepared by Veolia which project
site development, closure and post-closure care costs and timing of those expenditures for the landfill (Summary Comparison of 2011 and 2012 Airspace Memos). In addition to providing a summary of Veolias most recent projections, our
recommendations for predicted expenditures are included. Overall, we found Veolias approach to predicting the timing of cell construction and capping projects and their approach for building cost estimates for those projects to be sound. In
some cases, we believe the cost estimates are too aggressive to be considered reliable and in those cases we have recommended alternative costs for modeling purposes. Landfill gas collection and control piping costs are not included in the closure
estimate. 2-7

In this
area of the United States, over the past three years we have experienced double composite cell construction costs ranging from $500,000 to $575,000 and capping costs ranging from $150,000 to $200,000. These values represent construction costs only
and do not include engineering and owner administration costs. In view of this, and as shown in the Appendix C summary, it is recommended that certain cost expectations should be increased. Total projected Post Closure Care Costs calculated by
Veolia ES in 2012 dollars over a 30 year post closure period is estimated at $7,917,900. Leachate treatment and landfill gas system operations and maintenance costs contribute to concerns for the total post closure projected costs. The projected
costs are, based upon our experience, low for landfill post-closure care. Recommended allocations for construction of these cells are listed in a table included in Appendix C. 2.10 Site Visit and Interview A site visit and interview was not
permitted as of the date of this report. 2.11 Regulatory Interview (If allowed) A regulatory interview was not permitted as of the date of this report. 2.12 Other Significant Items that are Unique to the site The Facility has volunteered to
participate in the Cooperative Nursery Program in partnership with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to stock nearby streams. The program provides technical guidance as well as fish eggs, fry or fingerling fish to stock
streams for increased fishing opportunities. The proposed site is undergoing an evaluation of stream quality to determine its feasibility for rearing fish. The property taxes associated with non-landfill properties are assumed to be paid by selling
timber from property. There is a host agreement with Fox Township effective through July 31, 2018 to provide the following annual benefits: 1,000 tons per year MSW and C&D disposal 750 tons per year sludge disposal $5,000 to the ambulance
facility fund $5,000 to the Fire Company Benefit $3,000 for outdoor environmental center construction and operation $0.08/ton for materials weighed and disposed of at Greentree from other company owned facilities $5,000 for Scholarship program 2-8

$1.24/ton
for PA waste $1.02/ton for waste from outside PA until 6/30/2013, then $1/04/ton until 6/30/2015, then $1.06/ton A service fee agreement with Elk County exists effective through 3/31/2013 to pay the County $0.50/ton for disposable material,
excluding material generated in Elk County. Payment is made quarterly. Property taxes for the adjacent property areas are paid using revenues generated from timber. The presence of the Indiana bat on site requires that timber activities only occur
from 10/1 through 3/31. 2-9

3
LANCASTER LANDFILL 3.1 General Site Description The Veolia ES Lancaster Landfill is an active Construction and Demolition (C&D) landfill that began operation in 1996. The landfill is located at 2487 Cloverleaf Road in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania
on a 126 acre property which includes a currently permitted solid waste disposal footprint of 67.77 acres. According to VES-SW Historical Waste Intake Reports, the average waste intake over the last four years averaged 23,195 tons with a high of
70,899 tons in 2011 and low of 4,903 tons in 2009. The Landfill is permitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Permit No. 101559. The Landfill is currently owned and operated by VES-SW. An aerial photograph
depicting key site features is presented in Appendix B. 3.2 Key Documents Reviewed Landfill Profile Sheet, January 2012 Form 21 Construction/Demolition Waste Landfill Quarterly Water Quality Analysis, Q1-Q4 2011 Phase I and Phase II Landfill
Expansion (Drawings)Major Permit Modification Application, prepared by Blasosky Associates, Inc., dated June 2007, revised April 2010. Form 50 Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate Analyses, Q1 -Q4 2011 Environmental Due Diligence Report, prepared
by Blazosky Associates, Inc., May 2002. Landfill Evaluation Report, prepared by Golder Associates, Dated April 20, 2012 Form 1 Facility Plan, June 2007, revised September 2008. Veolia ES Lancaster Landfill, 2012 Airspace Calculations, 5/11/2012
Veolia ES Lancaster Landfill, 2012 [2011] Airspace Calculations, 6/7/2011 Annual Facility Capacity Report, June 2011 3-1

Based on
available documentation, a lawsuit was filed by a nearby resident and citizen group to appeal the issuance of the last expansion of this facility. Veolia indicates that it has reached an oral agreement to settle this lawsuit in return for purchasing
the neighboring property for $1.25M and allowing the resident to lease the property for a period of one year. 3.4 Airspace and Soil Balance As reported in the 2012 Airspace Memo, an annual landfill survey was completed in March 2012 to determine
remaining airspace. Based on that survey, there were 5,006,280 cubic yards of airspace remaining at that time. A 22 year projection of site life was completed using an assumed 500 ton per day waste acceptance rate (significantly lower than the
permitted average daily rate) and a waste density of 1,120 pounds per cubic yard. Site life calculations prepared for the permit expansion were based on 1,000 tons per day waste acceptance and estimated an approximate 8 year life of the expansion
area. From the Facility Plan (Form 1) prepared in 2008 for the expansion application which was approved in 2011, the soil balance indicates that approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of soils/aggregates will need to be imported for the
remaining life of site operation. 3.1 Liner and Cover System The landfill has a full composite liner and leachate collection system and a composite final cover system. Information provided in the Phase I & II Landfill Expansion,
prepared by Blazosky Associated, Inc, dated April 2010 indicate that the permitted base liner systems for the facility (from top to bottom) includes: 12-inch leachate collection soil layer Geotextile 60 mil HDPE primary geomembrane Geosynthetic clay
liner Drainage composite layer (leachate detection zone) 60 mil HDPE secondary geomembrane 6-inch soil subbase The final cover system (from top to bottom) may be summarized as follows: 24-inch cover soil layer including vegetative cover layer
Drainage composite layer 40 mil geomembrane 12-inch intermediate cover soil layer 3-3

3.2
Landfill Gas System / Landfill Gas to Energy As a non-putrescible waste disposal facility, no landfill gas management system is in place or anticipated. 3.3 Environmental Monitoring 3.3.1 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Eight groundwater monitoring
wells are sampled along with surface water and groundwater discharge pipes being sampled on a quarterly basis. During the last event with available data and report, completed August 2011, all of the wells, the surface water points and one of the
groundwater discharge pipes were sampled. All data was consistent with historic data and there was no indication of impacts to the environment from the landfill operations. All wells remain in detection monitoring. 3.3.2 Landfill Gas Probes Results
from Q1 through Q4 2011 testing of four landfill gas probes indicates that most methane readins are non-detect. Only two probe locations were reported to have detectable methane readings (both in Q3) at 0.1 percent. These results indicate that
landfill gas does not represent an issue for this landfill. 3.3.3 Stormwater Stormwater sampling DMRs were provided for outfall 002 for 2011 (2 sampling periods). No numerical limits are included in the NPDES permit and therefore there were no
exceedances reported. The limitations are stated as Report. 3.3.4 Air and Landfill Gas As a non-putrescible waste facility, LFG is not anticipated to represent a significant issue for the Lancaster Landfill. This is evidenced by the lack
of methane in LFG probes. 3.4 Compliance History No violations were noted for this facility in the Violations History document prepared by Veolia. The Lancaster Landfill Evaluation Report (Golder, April 2012) summarizes the findings from compliance
audits conducted by Golder on behalf of Veolia for the facility in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The audits identified six red flags in 2009 (sideslope re-grading, training and logs for SWPPP and SPCC, sampling of the potable well, site signage, and erosion
issues all of which were rectified by June 24, 2009. In 2010, two red flags were identified (tank placards and site signage which were rectified by June 2, 2011). In 2011, 3-4

twelve red
flags were identified (E-Policy training, secondary containment redesign, update SPCC, and battery storage all of which were reported to be rectified by September 27,2011). A review of the PADEP EFacts website indicates that the facility is
inspected on a monthly basis. Two violations were noted in the EFacts database from 2007 through present. The most recent was in September of 2009 when an issue related to the leachate collection system was noted. The other was in July of 2007 when
the PADEP noted that the facility was cited for failure to minimize dust or other nuisances and failure to maintain roads. The database indicates that all of these issues were Corrected/Abated. 3.5 Capital Expenditures and Closure / Post
Closure Costs Included as Appendix B is a comparison of recent assessments prepared by Veolia which project site development, closure and post-closure care costs and timing of those expenditures for the landfill (Summary Comparison of 2011 and 2012
Airspace Memos). In addition to providing a summary of Veolias most recent projections, our recommendations for predicted expenditures are included. Overall, we found Veolias approach to predicting the timing of cell construction and
capping projects and their approach for building cost estimates for those projects to be sound. In some cases, we believe the cost estimates are too aggressive to be considered reliable and in those cases we have recommended alternative costs for
modeling purposes. In this area of the United States, over the past three years we have experienced double composite cell construction costs ranging from $500,000 to $575,000 and capping costs ranging from $150,000 to $200,000. In view of this, and
as shown in the Appendix B summary, it is recommended that certain cost expectations should be increased. 3.6 Site Visit and Interview A site visit and interview was not conducted were not permitted as of the date of this draft report. 3.7
Regulatory Interview (If allowed) A regulatory interview was not permitted as of the date of this report conducted. 3.8 Other Significant Items that are Unique to the site A host municipality agreement exists with the Township of Mount Joy which
among other things, specifies: a $ 1.30 per ton fee payable to the Town. operating hours as 6:30 am until 6:30 pm (M-F, Summer) and 6:30 am until 5:30 pm (M-F, Winter) and 7 am until 1 pm on Saturday (closed on Sundays). 3-5

establishes fines payable to the Township for failure to police litter, control dust, make notifications or provide
document copies to the Town, or certain operations and facility maintenance items. specifies hauling routes for trucks disposing at the facility. 3-6

4 CHESTNUT
VALLEY LANDFILL 4.1 General Site Description This waste disposal site reportedly began operations in the 1960s or possibly even earlier as the J&J Landfill property. In the 1970s the City of Uniontown supposedly disposed of about 60
tons/day at this location. This site was originally permitted by the State of Pennsylvania on September 27, 1983 to J&J Sanitation for operation of a 46.0 acre waste disposal facility and associated adjacent support facilities on property
totaling 83.22 acres. The Chestnut Valley Landfill (facility) is an active municipal solid waste landfill located at 1184 McClellandtown Road, Fayete County, McClellandtown, PA 15458. This facility had its permit (# 100419) modified on
September 17, 1990 as the J & J Landfill which was at that time owned by CBF, Inc. The facility was acquired by Veolia in June of 1998 and the Solid Waste Permit was re-issued to Veolia ES on November 6, 2006. A major modification was
granted in 2011 to renew the solid waste permit through 2021. An aerial photograph depicting key site features is presented in Appendix C. 4.2 Key Documents Reviewed NPDES Permit No. PA0090948 Golder Opinion Statement & Supporting Documents
by Golder Associates, dated April 20,2012 Landfill Evaluation Report for Chestnut Valley Landfill by Golder Associates, dated April 20, 2012 Monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) dated July 1, 2011 Veolia ES Memo-2012 Annual
Airspace Calculations, dated May 16, 2012 Veolia ESLandfill Profile Sheet for the Chestnut Valley Landfill DER-BWQ (Leachate Treatment) Permit- #2689201 Title V Air Quality Permit-#TV26-00402-Expires July 29, 2016 Plan Approval
Permit-#PA-2600402B-Expires February 5, 2014 PA Solid Waste Permit-# 101421-Closure Plan Revisions-Issued September 16, 2011 PA Solid Waste Permit-#100419-Originally issued September 17, 1990 German Township Resolution for Host
Municipality Agreement Extension with Veolia ES- Amendment dated August 10,2010 4-1

4.3.3
Pending / Future / Expansion There are no expansion plans for the Chestnut Valley Landfill although the planned construction completion of Cell # 6 in years 2014, 2016 and 2018 is estimated to add an additional 7.8 years or 2,226,845 cubic yards of
airspace. 4.4 Airspace and Soil Balance The facility property consists of a total area of 83.22 acres with a permitted footprint of 52.75 acres based on the Veolia ES Landfill Profile Sheet. Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B are filled and have no further
airspace. Cells 5 and 6A-1 are presently being filled with Cells 6A-2 (2014), 6A-3 (2016) and 6B (2018) yet to be constructed. 4.4.1 Permitted Airspace Based on reviewable records the total permitted airspace is 6,331,380 cy. Various
documents list remaining available airspace at either 3,160,079 or 3, 211,466 cy with the most recent document (May 2012) presenting 3,160,079. An internal Veolia ES memo dated May 16, 2012 indicates there was 3,380,799 cy of airspace as of the
2011 yearly survey. On that basis the remaining constructed airspace is stated to be 933,234 cy (Cell5/6A-1). Unconstructed airspace residing in permitted Cells 6A-2, 6A-3 and 6B is 2,226,845 cy. Thus, it is believed that the slightly higher
remaining airspace number of 3,211,466 cy represents about 51,387 cy of now consumed volume. 4.4.2 Remaining Permitted/ Constructed Airspace Based on the preceding paragraph the remaining constructed airspace is stated to be 933,234 cy (Cell5/6A-1).
Unconstructed airspace residing in permitted Cells 6A-2, 6A-3 and 6B is 2,226,845 cy. Thus, it is believed that the slightly higher remaining airspace number of 3,211,466 cy represents about 51,387 cy of now consumed volume. 4.4.3 Remaining Site
Life Remaining site life at Chestnut Valley is subjective based particularly on the preferred density compaction number that is chosen. While Veolia ES states a remaining site life of 11.0 years it is based on a projected Life-of-Landfill Density of
2,000 lbs/cy. The historical density number at this landfill from 2008-2011 was 1,500 lbs/cy. It is only in about the last year based on the acceptance of significant quantities of Marcellus Shale cutting that the density number rose to 2,408
lbs/cy. Thus, so even though Veolia ES used a density number of 2,000 lbs/cy to project remaining site life it is highly subjective whether that density number can be maintained with the unknown projection of well drilling for Marcellus gas over the
remaining life of this landfill. Using an annual acceptance of solid waste of 1,000 tons/day (used by Veolia ES) and using 286 days/year of waste acceptance (also used by Veolia ES) but using density 4-3

numbers of
1,500 lbs/cy and 2,000 lbs/cy with a remaining airspace of 3,160,079 the remaining site life of the Chestnut Valley Landfill ranges from 11.0 years to 8.3 years. 4.4.4 Soil Balance Evidence of a soil balance for the site was not apparent based upon
the documents reviewed. Based solely upon a review of the landfill site plan, the area of the site designated for soil borrow/storage does not appear to be adequately large so as to supply operational and cover soils for the life of the facility.
Additional information is required for this determination. 4.5 Liner and Cover System This site was formerly a coal strip mine. The site began operation as a landfill in 1959. Early portions of the landfill had limited engineering features (i.e.,
solid waste was disposed into an unlined and presumably uncontrolled disposal area). Later development included full composite base liner system, leachate and gas collection. Recently completed construction and the planned build out of the remaining
areas of Cell 6 will be of the double composite liner type. Planned new construction for the Liner System Design is summarized as follows (Bottom to Top): 4.5.1 Baseliner System (double composite liner) Underdrain seep drain along toe of old unlined
waste area 12 inch Intermediate Cover over existing unlined old waste area Subgrade Gas Venting Piping System 6 inch minimum, 3A inch maximum particle size Subbase material at lx 105 cm/sec 100 mil HDPE textured Secondary geomembrane
Geocomposite drainage layer Detection Zone with single collector pipe Geosynthetic Clay Liner 100 mil HDPE textured Primary geomembrane 10 ounce Geotextile 18 inch minimum granular drainage material with one main header pipe (with 2 laterals in Cell
6) 4.5.2 Final Cover System (single composite liner) Prepared subgrade of 1 foot Intermediate Cover; 2 feet minimum General Fill placed at one time including vegetative cover layer 10 ounce non-woven geotextile cushion 4-4

40 mil
textured LLDPE geomembrane Geocomposite Drainage Layer 2 feet minimum General Fill placed at one time including vegetative cover layer 4.6 Landfill Gas System / Landfill Gas to Energy Based upon the documents reviewed the landfill is equipped with
an active landfill gas collection system consisting of landfill gas wells, header piping, lateral piping and a central blower and flare station. Recent internal Veolia ES documentation indicates that on February 6, 2012 a LOI was signed with
PPL Renewables to install a 3.2 MWh electrical generation facility with an anticipated gas flow of 860 scfm. This is based on landfill gas recovery of 52 percent. Whether associated take off and purchase power agreements are in place is unknown. 4.7
Environmental Monitoring This facility utilizes the Dakota Auditor Software to manage the facilitys environmental compliance program. Based on the April 20, 2012 report by Golder Associates all red flags indentified in 2011 of which there
were seven (7) were rectified as of September 20, 2011. 4.7.1 Hydrogeology and Groundwater The groundwater monitoring network at the facility seems to consist of four (4) wells which are sampled for each constituent parameter. The
particular wells sampled vary depending on the parameter. Based on documentation there appear to be some eighty-eight (88) total wells on the property. There are four (4) categories of parameters for which analysis is performed: Landfill
Parameters (Ammonia, COD, Chloride and TOC) Mine Related Parameters Other Common Ions Heavy Metals The April 20, 2012 Golder Associates report makes reference in Section 6.0 (Environmental Compliance Overview) to . environmental
concerns exist including groundwater exceedances and landfill gas emissions. Veolias Environmental Liability/Summary (12.5.1.1) summarizes groundwater quality issues as follows: This site was formerly a coal strip mine. The site
began operation as a landfill in 1959. Early portions of the landfill had limited engineering features. Later 4-5

development included full composite base liner system, leaehate and gas collection. Groundwater is sampled quarterly for
this facility. The site had 5 wells that have had low yields. Four mine level piezometers were installed in an attempt to encounter a zone with greater yield. The site performed assessment monitoring in 1994 and 1995 to evaluate conditions around
the upgradient well. The results of the assessment indicated that results were due to natural conditions. The last event with available data and report was completed third quarter 2011. During this event, samples were collected from 2 wells and 1
mine level piezometer. Analytical testing includes testing for indicator parameters, select metal quarterly and a full list of metals annually and VOCs on a quarterly basis. There have been anomalous trace levels of organic compounds present in
samples collected from the site; however, none were present during this last event. There have been ammonia and chloride detections which appear to have been increasing; however, no SSIs. Total iron and manganese have been elevated; however, this is
due to low yield and high turbidities and is not associated with a release from the landfill. The pH is elevated in the samples collected from one well and is due to grading in the area of the well. None of the detections are considered indicative
of a release from the landfill. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. 4.7.2 Landfill Gas Probes No LFG probe monitoring data was provided. However, Veolias Environmental Liability/Summary (12.5.1.1) summarizes LFG
migration issues as follows: LFG migration has occurred along the southwest side of Area 2B and was a historic site condition associated with the limited engineering controls in portions of the facility and were initially detected in the 1990s. The
source was identified as the old unlined portion of the landfill and the former coal strip mine located on the property. The subsurface gas migration was mitigated with a vacuum applied to migration control wells installed just outside the limits of
waste. Currently, no landfill gas has been detected in the monitoring gas probes. 4.7.3 Stormwater All stormwater from the facility is channeled through a sedimentation pond system prior to discharge. There are three (3) discharges from this
facility which are allowed under the sites NPDES permit. Outfalls 002 and 003 all designated for the intermittent discharge of stormwater. There are no effluent limits recommended for these outfalls. Monitoring for iron is recommended based on
the levels listed in the permit application, Discharges from these outfalls enter an unnamed tributary to Dunlap Creek which in turn discharges into the Monongahela River. 4-6

Discharge
monitoring reports were provided for the leachate treatment plant, outfall 001, and for stormwater outfalls 002 and 003. Review of treatment plant DMRs for January through November 2011 indicated frequent exceedence of flow limitations and
occasional parameter exceedences for parameters such as ammonia and nickel. DMRs for outfalls 002 and 003 monitor and report Iron. No limitation standard is listed. 4.7.4 Leachate The facility has an existing pre-treatment plant which treats
leachate generated from landfilling operations. This plant operates under DER-BWQ Permit # 2689201 and discharges through outfall 001 indentified under NPDES #PA 0090948. Pre-treatment discharge is permitted for a continuous average flow of 0.036
MGD. Water quality based effluent limits are necessary for ammonia, antimony, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, methylene chloride, aluminum, dissolved iron and cobalt. Existing documentation (Discharge Monitoring Report -DMR) for the period
7/1/2011-7/31/2011 indicates no parameter exceedances from the NPDES permit although average flow of 0.0426 MGD did exceed the permitted average flow of 0.036 MGD. Veolia ES has budgeted plans to re-locate the existing pre-treatment plant, to
upgrade it and to demolish the existing plant in 2013-14. 4.7.5 Air and Landfill Gas The Golder Associates report of April 20, 2012 indicates air emissions exceedances but does not elaborate on the specifics nor whether the facility is under
any compliance schedule. The facility holds a Title V permit valid into 2016. This permit includes the monitoring and reporting requirements. Evidence was provided that greenhouse gas reporting was filed for 2010. Report cites 1835.3 Metric Tons of
methane. PADEP Compliance Certification Form indicates that SSM procedures routinely followed. Landfill gas flare operation monitored by chart recorder. 4.8 Compliance History At present according to the Dakota Compliance report of 2011 the facility
appears to be in compliance. However, the Golder Associates report of April 20, 2012 as noted earlier indicates GW exceedances and landfill gas emissions. Veolias summary of violations (12.3.1.1 Violation History) indicates three
violations in 2006/2007 related to effluent discharge exceedances of the NPDES permit, one violation in 2008 for operating the working face too close to the liner limits, two violations in 2009 4-7

for
inadequate cover and litter control, and one violation in 2010 for not filing for the solid waste permit renewal in a timely manner and not following (or requesting PADEP approval for modification of) the capping phasing plan specified in the prior
permit. Reportedly, these violations have all been resolved. One outstanding/pending violation was indicated as follows:  An Enforcement Notice was issued by Fayette County Planning, Zoning and Community Development for violating performance
standards by storing dumpsters and garbage trucks on property zoned Al and Bl which is not permitted. The site is working to resolve this issue. 4.9 Capital Expenditures and Closure / Post Closure Costs All costs that are used in this section were
extracted from information provided by Veolia ES documentation. Applicable discussions relative to the validity of these costs are presented at the end of this section. 4.9.1 Cell Development No landfill expansion is planned for Chestnut Valley.
However, in the years 2014, 2016 and 2018 construction is planned for Cells 6A-2, 6A-3 and 6B respectively. Cell 6A-2 consisting of 4.83 acres is projected to add 543,664 cy of airspace as will Cell 6A-3 which will be constructed in year 2016.
Lastly Cell 6B, to be constructed in year 2018 is estimated to add 1,139,517 cy and will consist of 4.68 acres. Construction cost for the three years of cell construction is estimated by Veolia ES to be $2,476,072, $2,476,072 and $2,379,806
respectively. Average landfill cell construction costs on the order of $512,000 per acre are low nominally low in comparison to recent experience with landfill baseliner construction. In this area of the United States, over the past three years we
have experienced double composite cell construction costs ranging from $500,000 to $575,000. These values represent construction costs only and do not include engineering and owner administration costs. In view of this, and as shown in the Appendix
C summary, it is recommended that certain cost expectations should be increased. However, stormwater costs, the source of construction soils, and the restoration of borrow areas are not clearly explained. Allocated monies of 5% for administration
and contingency seem low. Recommended allocations for construction of these cells are listed in a table included in Appendix C. 4.9.2 Closure Veolia ES in their 2012 documentation increased closure costs by 3.3 % from last years estimates
owing largely to an inflation rate of 2.9% year over year. Closure areas do not correspond to cell construction phased in the Veolia ES documents. Closure costs by phase with associated acreage, construction cost and year of construction are as
follows: 4-8

Phase
Acres Construction Cost Year 2 5.35 $662,491 2012 3 6.75 $1,032,559 2014 4 3.95 $488,744 2016 5 9.98 $1,486,479 2021 6 7.75 $687,312 2022 7 11.91 $1,812,901 2024 Closure cost per acre averages approximately $135,000 per acre. The per acre cost is
lower than our general experience with final cover construction. In this area of the United States, over the past three years we have experienced capping costs ranging from $150,000 to $200,000. These values represent construction costs only and do
not include engineering and owner administration costs. In view of this, and as shown in the Appendix C summary, it is recommended that certain cost expectations should be increased. Recommended allocations for construction of these cells are listed
in a table included in Appendix C. 4.9.3 Landfill Gas System Landfill gas system costs are included in the spreadsheet identified as Chestnut Memo Final 05-16-12. Unit prices for landfill gas pipe installation appear to be low based upon recent
landfill gas system bids. The estimates do not appear to allow for replacement of landfill gas wells and do not appear to include costs for the installation of well dewatering pumps, compressed air line, and force main. Recommended allocations for
construction of these cells are listed in a table included in Appendix C. 4.9.4 Other Capital Expenditures Besides the costs for the demolition of the existing leachate pre-treatment plant ($113,300 in 2013 noted earlier in this report and the costs
for the new leachate pre-treatment plant ($1,200,000 in 2013) the existing flare will require relocation due to the continued construction of Cell 6. That cost is budgeted for $200,000 and is to be spent in 2014. 4.9.5 Post Closure Total projected
Post Closure Care Costs calculated by Veolia ES in 2012 dollars over a 30 year post closure period is estimated at $3,899,400. Stormwater costs, leachate treatment with no basis for yearly quantities and the need for borrow soils all contribute to
concerns for the total post closure projected costs. The projected costs are, based upon our experience, low for landfill post-closure care. Recommended allocations for construction of these cells are listed in a table included in Appendix C. 4-9

4.10 Site
Visit and Interview A site visit and interview were not permitted as of the date of this report. 4.11 Regulatory Interview (If allowed) A regulatory interview wras not permitted as of the date of this report. 4.12 Other Significant Items that are
Unique to the site Much of the Chestnut Valley Landfill facility property and adjacent property has been previously deep mined and surface mined for coal. Pittsburgh coal underlies much of this facility. Three (3) deep mined areas (referred to
as small) have been particularly identified under Area 6. Geotechnical work on the site prior to the issuance of the 1990 Solid Waste Permit showed that site mine openings appeared to have fully collapsed leaving only limited pockets of
discontinuous voids. Superior Services, Inc. (previous owner of this facility) owned all the mineral rights under the property comprising the acreage of this facility. They agreed at permit issuance not to mine any of the remaining coal on site. It
is unclear whether the mineral rights transferred to Veolia ES upon their purchase of this facility. 4-10

LIMITATIONS The work product included in the attached was undertaken in full conformity with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices and to the fullest extent as allowed by law we expressly disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The work product was
completed in Ml conformity with the contract with our client and this document is solely for the use and reliance of our client (unless previously agreed upon that a third party could rely on the work product) and any reliance on this work product
by an unapproved outside party is at such partys risk. The work product herein (including opinions, conclusions, suggestions, etc.) was prepared based on the situations and circumstances as found at the time, location, scope and goal of our
performance and thus should be relied upon and used by our client recognizing these considerations and limitations. Cornerstone shall not be liable for the consequences of any change in environmental standards, practices, or regulations following
the completion of our work and there is no warrant to the veracity of information provided by third parties, or the partial utilization of this work product. L-1

VES Solid
Waste Environmental Liability/SummaryJuly 2012 The purpose of this document is to provide a summary on the Companys environmental liability issues. The liabilities are presented in three major categories, 1) landfills; 2) other
environmental liabilities; and, 3) environmental compliance, and are presented below: All of the Veolia landfills are listed with a summary of ground water monitoring results and associated risks provided. If the landfill has other environmental
impacts such as landfill gas migration, surface water, or air issues these issues were also summarized. Of the Veolia Landfills, three have been identified as having the highest environmental risks for the Company and are presented at the top of
list. Other Veolia facilities where environmental impacts or liabilities have been identified are also presented. The other Veolia facilities consist of properties or businesses that have had environmental impacts identified that would be considered
as significant (> $50,000 of potential exposure) and require additional remedial work and resolution. The final category summarizes significant (>$50,000) existing or pending environmental compliance issues (such as a notice of violation) that
requires further negotiation and settlement with an oversight Regulatory body. The Company currently has one pending issue that would fall into this category, which is the Orchard Hills Landfill Gas (LFG) Consent Order. 1

HIGHER
CONCERN FACILITIES Land and Gas Reclamation Landfill (LGRL), Horicon, WIThis is a historic Superfund landfill facility that was operated by others from 1959 to 1986. This landfill is located on the same property or facility as the Glacier
Ridge Landfill located in Dodge County, Wisconsin. The facility went through a CERCLA/Superfund RIFS and ROD procedural process in the early 1990s. The site was final capped in 1988 and an active gas extraction system and flare has been in
operation since 1991. The facility consists of an unlined landfill, with a calculated capacity of 1.3 million yards of solid and industrial waste. The site took in hazardous waste in the 1970s. Groundwater downgradient of the site has
been impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). There has been VOC contamination documented in the adjacent down gradient shallow groundwater aquifer and also within the regional dolomite aquifer at distances up to 2000 feet from the waste
limits. Veolia has successor liability from the former owner with an identified 39.5 % responsibility. The LGRL landfill is located on the Veolia Glacier Ridge Landfill property and is immediately adjacent to the operating Glacier Ridge
Landfill. Veolia is proposing an expansion to Glacier Ridge Landfill that would involve the removal of the LGRL in place waste, re-internment of the old waste into the new fully engineered Glacier Ridge Landfill facility, and then development of a
fully engineered landfill over the former LGRL footprint. There are several scientific hydrogeological and engineering reports which have been generated on this subject. The last groundwater monitoring was conducted in April 2012 and there were no
significant differences in groundwater data between October 2011 report and the April 2012 sampling. 2

Valley
View Landfill Decatur, ILThis is a MSW landfill located outside of Decatur, Illinois (Macon County). This site began operations in 1957 and has two discreet regulatory units or areas (Unit 1 and Unit 2). Valley View LandfillUnit
1Unit 1 is a closed landfill located on the east side of the site that complies with IEPA Chapter 35 IAC 807 regulations. Unit 1 is an unlined landfill area with a slurry wall, gradient control and active gas extraction system. A slurry wall
was installed around Unit 1 in 2001. There are 15 groundwater monitoring wells installed within 2 monitoring zones around this unit. The 8 shallow wells are installed in a discontinuous groundwater producing zone and are monitored quarterly as part
of a corrective action (slurry wall and gradient control system). The results are compared to Class I groundwater quality standards (GWQS) and background. The site is in corrective action and all wells are within a groundwater management zone
(except for the upgradient wells G400 and G401). There is currently one pending application with IEPA related to the water quality at G400. As a result, a GMZ will be developed around G400 due to impacts in the groundwater. The GMZ application is
due to IEPA in August 2012. There are 7 wells installed in a deeper hydrogeologic zone considered the Uppermost Aquifer (UMA). None of the deep zone wells are monitored as part of the corrective action. Samples from these wells are compared to Class
I GWQS and Background groundwater quality. A groundwater monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. The most recent groundwater monitoring event was conducted in May 2012 and the results of that event do not show
any significant differences in groundwater data between the November 2011 report and the May 2012 sampling. This event was used in part to verify some results from the third quarter event and to provide data for samples collected as part of the
fourth quarter event. Ground water exceedances include the following: 3

Class I
GWQS: dissolved manganese; chloride, dissolved iron and total dissolved solids (TDS). Exceedances of background levels: dissolved iron, total organic hydrocarbons (TOX), manganese, sulfate, dissolved arsenic, total barium, boron, total and dissolved
chloride, dissolved ammonia, specific conductance, TDS, and total organic carbon (TOC). None of the deep wells are in assessment monitoring and detection monitoring for all deep wells continues quarterly. Valley View LandfillUnit 2This
is the active MSW portion of the facility. It complies with Chapter 35IAC811-814 regulations and was permitted this way in 1998. There are 35 wells that monitor the shallow and deep hydrogeological zones around the landfill on a quarterly basis. The
last monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011 and this event was used to confirm the results of the 3rd quarter for some locations and provided the data for the 4th quarter. Three wells were dry during the
November monitoring. The latest sampling event was conducted in May 2012. There were no significant differences in groundwater data between the November 2011 report and the May sampling. The slurry wall that extends around Unit 1 also extends around
a portion of Unit 2. Unit 2 has engineered liners, a leachate collection system, an active gas collection system and external gradient control in the vicinity of the slurry wall. There were no exceedances confirmed from the 3rd quarter as part of
the November monitoring for wells installed in the deep zone. Landfill gas migration is present in three probes located along the north side of the site. A Gas Migration Remediation Plan was submitted to IEPA in May 2000 which presented corrective
actions proposed to address the subsurface gas migration. Migration control includes aggressive LFG well field tuning. Gas in these probes continues at present. An application was submitted to IEPA in June 2012 providing an update of the gas
migration. The application 4

proposed
the installation of an additional gas extraction well along the northern boundary of Section III to address the gas on the north side of the site. Veolia proposes to install that extraction well later this summer. A landfill expansion permit is
currently under review and a portion of the landfill will be constructed in the area of the landfill gas migration. The landfill expansion construction will remove the permeable zones within the upper glacial till where landfill gas has been
historically present. Valley Meadows Landfill Fort Atkinson, WIThis is a MSW landfill that operated from 1976 through May 1998. Construction of the final cover was completed in 1999. The site is approximately 28-acres in size and contains
2.1 million cubic yards of in-place MSW. Approximately 30% of the site has a liner and leachate collection system. The remaining 70% has no liner or leachate collection. The entire site has a composite final cover system and a full active gas
extraction system. The site had historic subsurface landfill gas migration issues in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since approximately 2003 subsurface gas migration has been controlled and in compliance. The site has had historic low
level VOC contamination. Groundwater and several private wells are monitored on a semi-annual basis. No VOCs were detected above the drinking water standards in samples collected from any of the private drinking water wells during the event with
data and report completed in October 2011. Benzene and alkalinity exceeded the PAL in samples collected from MW-2R and MW-105, respectively. Benzene and alkalinity are likely landfill related and due to landfill gas migration. There were several
other historic low-level VOCs in select monitoring wells which are due to the landfill. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring event 5

conducted
for this site was completed in April 2012. There were no significant changes in the groundwater data between the October 2011 report and the April 2012 sampling. CENTRAL REGIONILLINOIS Zion Landfill Zion, ILThere are 3 distinct landfills
permitted at this facility. Site 1, Phase 1A is a closed RCRA landfill. The post-closure care, including monitoring and reporting, for this landfill is the responsibility of BFI/Republic Services. Site 1, Phase 1B is a small site consisting of 2
cells of 5-acres each. This is a closed landfill with a composite liner and leachate collection system. It was permitted in 1992. Waste placement began in 1994 and the landfill closed in 1998. The post-closure care, including monitoring and
reporting, for this landfill is the responsibility of BFI/Republic Services Site 2 is an active landfill that was originally permitted in 1980 and commenced operation in 1981. The site received a permit to expand the facility in 1997 and opened in
1998. Monitoring and maintenance for the originally permitted area (Old Site 2) is the responsibility of BFI/Republic Services. The expansion area (Site 2) is the responsibility of Veolia. In 2011 Veolia received a permit to expand vertically over
the Site 2 area. Additionally, a permit application was submitted for another horizontal expansion of Site 2 to the east. Veolia is the owner of all three sites, and the operator of Site 2. BFI/Republic is the operator for Site 1, Phase A and Site 1
Phase B and Old Site 2 and is responsible for all operational, closure, long term care, compliance and any future potential remediation efforts. Groundwater monitoring wells are installed within several hydrogeologic zones beneath the site. There
are 7 upgradient wells and 37 zone of attenuation wells and 4 compliance 6

boundary wells. 31 wells are sampled semi-annually and the remainder of the wells are
sampled quarterly. The last groundwater monitoring event with available data and report was completed in 4Q2011 (September 2011). During that event confirmation sampling was also conducted to confirm the results of 3Q11. There were no 3Q11
exceedances confirmed. Four wells at the facility are currently in assessment monitoring. Three are associated with Old Site 2/Site 2 and one is Site 1 Phase B. GT-16  is located along the west side of Cell 1 of Zion Site 1 Phase B. Even
though the results are Republics responsibility, the well is on Veolias property therefore, Veolia has an interest in the results and conditions related to this landfill and well. Assessment began in 2004 and indicated that the
exceedances were attributed to a leachate force main and underground storage tank. The forcemain and leachate tank were removed in 2007 as part of an approved corrective action plan. The well will continue to be monitored under assessment until
there are no exceedances. The Hydrogeologic zone that this and the other 3 wells mentioned above, consist of thin discontinuous lenses of sand that are from 0.5 to 2 feet in thickness with no commercial use of the water from these zones. The
remainder of the wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. Orchard Hills Landfill, Davis Junction, IL  This is a fully engineered MSW landfill constructed on a greenfield site which has operated from 1998 to the present. The site
groundwater is in environmental compliance. There are 6 upgradient wells, 19 zone of attenuation wells and 2 compliance boundary wells. All but 2 of the wells are sampled semi- 7 DRAFT

annually. There are 2 wells that dont yet qualify for semi-annual monitoring;
therefore, they are still sampled quarterly. A groundwater monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. There were no exceedances for samples collected during this event. All wells at the site remain in detection
monitoring. The latest monitoring event was conducted in May 2012. There was no significant change in the groundwater data between the November 2011 report and the May 2012 sampling. In 2010, regulatory inspections prompted by odor complaints
resulted in violations and regulatory enforcement actions. Through a series of air permit modifications and significant LFG collection and combustion system expansions, Veolia has addressed current conditions. Additionally, Veolia installed a
SulfaTreat system to remove H2S from the collected LFG and is currently collecting and combusting around 6,000 scfm of LFG with the potential to combust 10,500 scfm of LFG. Veolia is also negotiating a Consent Order with IEPA and USEPA to resolve
the enforcement actions that resulted from the odor issues. CENTRAL REGION  MINNESOTA Rolling Hills Landfill, Buffalo, MN  This is an active industrial waste landfill which began operation in 1965. It was previously
operated as a MSW site, converting to industrial, C&D and c-soil in the late 1990s. The first landfill at the site was an unlined facility. This area occupies approximately 28-acres. This landfill is closed with a synthetic cover and active gas
extraction system. The remainder of the landfill occupies approximately 52-acres of which 30-acres has final cover. There are 24 groundwater monitoring wells, 7 private wells and 8 lysimeters which are monitored on a regular basis. Monitoring at
this site is conducted 3 times a year, Spring 8 DRAFT

(April), Summer (July) and Fall (October). The Spring event includes routine monitoring
at 16 wells and groundwater elevations at 8 wells, the Summer event includes VOC sampling at 13 wells and groundwater elevations at 11 wells and the Fall event includes VOC monitoring at 16 groundwater monitoring wells, 7 private wells, and PCB
monitoring every other year at 2 wells. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed for Fall 2011. During this event, select wells were sampled for VOCs, one well was sampled for dissolved cadmium and five lysimeters were sampled
for VOCs as required per the approved sampling and analysis plan (SAP) for the site. During this event, five VOC parameters were detected above the reporting limit at wells in close proximity to the closed, unlined portion of the facility. Only
vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration above the HRL (health risk limit established by Minnesota Department of Health). The results are attributed to intermittent landfill gas migration from the closed portion of the landfill. The cadmium
result from the MW-28 sample (which had previously exceeded the intervention limit (IL) established by MPCA) was now less than the IL during the fall 2011. During the fall event, five lysimeters (LYS-1, 2, 3, 4 & 6) were also sampled for VOCs.
One lysimeter, LYS-4 was also sampled for PCBs. Five VOCs were detected in the lysimeter samples in 2011. No PCBs were reported in the one sample analyzed for those compounds. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring and there is no
anticipated change to the groundwater assessment monitoring due to the VOCs detected in some of the groundwater samples. The latest groundwater monitoring event conducted for this site was the spring 2012 event. There was no significant change in
groundwater quality for the spring 2012 compared to what was reported for the fall 2011 event. 9 DRAFT

The unlined portion of the landfill has some limited intermittent subsurface gas
migration issues located immediately adjacent to the old landfill. The existing active gas extraction system is routinely fine-tuned to address the gas migration issues related to the closed portion of the landfill. CENTRAL REGIONMISSOURI Oak
Ridge Landfill, Valley Park, MO  This is a MSW landfill that ceased taking waste in September 2011 and is currently undertaking final closure activities. The landfill is divided into two sections from a regulatory perspective, the north
section and the south section. The landfill operated from 1973 to September 2011. Waste placed in the north section was placed over in-situ clay soils and/or a clay liner. Perimeter leachate collection was installed in the late-1990s. A clay cover
system was installed in the late 1980s and the north site was regulatory closed in 1992. The south section has multiple liner systems ranging from clay liner to geosynthetic liner. A composite final cover system was constructed on the southern
12-acres in 2006 and the balance of the 42-acres will receive final cover in 2012. There are 4 hydrogeologic units monitored around the site. The upper 3 zones are part of a supplemental monitoring network and the lowest zone is the aquifer
considered to be the primary monitoring network. There are 19 wells at the facility and 12 of them are installed in the primary network with the rest being supplemental. Six wells at the site have a low yield and are sampled using a diffusion bag
sampler. The rest of the wells are sampled with bladder pumps. 10 DRAFT

A monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. The
results of that monitoring indicated that there were several statistically significant increases (SSIs). Several SSIs were documented for the November 2011 event; these included . Specific conductance, chloride ), and fluoride ). Magnesium and
nitrate/nitrite results were considered SSIs for samples collected from one well. The November 2011 report was the last one that was generated. Another sampling event was conducted in May 2012 and the report is due to MDNR in August 2012.Assessment
monitoring activities were conducted for the site between May 2001 and May 2002. The main conclusion of that assessment was that sporadic, localized landfill gas migration has affected groundwater in samples collected from wells at the site. MDNR
concurred with the findings in January 2003. Since 2003, additional evaluation has been performed including assessment of groundwater concentrations, leachate levels and concentrations, gas system operation and other factors such as a losing stream
located next to and likely affecting groundwater quality at the site. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. There has been an historic LFG migration issue on the east and west sides of the closed north landfill. Waste was placed
within 50 to 100 feet of the property line. Several remedial measures were installed in the 1990s and early 2000s, with improvements to the active gas extraction system (gas header, wells and cut off trench) and operational improvements. Maple
Hill Landfill, Macon, MO  This is an active MSW Landfill. There are 4 phases: I, II and III that were certified closed in the early 2000s. Phase IV is an active Subtitle D landfill with a full composite liner, leachate and gas collection
system. Phases 1 and 2 consisting of 3-acres and 9-acres, respectively, and do not have a clay liner or leachate collection. Landfilling 11 DRAFT

consisted of filling on-site ravines with waste depths on the order of 20 feet. Phases
1 and 2 have minimal gas collection. Phase 3 has 4 feet of compacted clay liner placed at the base of the Phase 3 disposal cell Phase 3 has leachate collection and an active gas extraction system. There are 10 wells monitoring a single zone at the
site. A groundwater monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. There were a couple of groundwater samples with SSIs. There was a monitoring event conducted in May 2012; however, the report is not due to MDNR for
another month, so the report details presented in the February 2012 version of the summary are up to date.Assessment monitoring was conducted in 1999 and the results of that assessment monitoring demonstrated that natural spatial variability is
present and is the cause of SSIs. The site returned to detection monitoring. There are no monitoring wells currently in assessment at this facility. CENTRAL REGION  WISCONSIN Cranberry Creek Landfill, Wisconsin Rapids, WI  This is a
fully engineered active MSW landfill. The site received approval to begin operation in 1982. There are 32 wells located around the landfill which include 4 subtitle D wells. The 4 Subtitle D wells are currently in assessment monitoring; due to
previous exceedances for sulfate in samples from B-131BR. The sulfate exceedances are related to cover materials placed on the site during final closure of a portion of the facility in 2003 and 2004. With the exception of the dissolved vanadium
(B-132 and B-138) and the dissolved cobalt and dissolved nickel concentrations (B-138), all assessment monitoring parameters were below NR140 standards or were less than the laboratory limit of quantitation (LOQ). Four rounds of assessment were
completed with the April 2011 event and a 12 DRAFT

plan modification was also submitted to WDNR to reduce the monitoring which was
approved in November 2011. was submitted to WDNR in April 2012 to request cessation of the assessment monitoring requirement for the site. In July 2012, WDNR sent a draft approval for this request. The remainder of the wells at the site remain in
detection monitoring. Hardness and alkalinity exceeded standards in samples collected from upgradient well MW-202, sidegradient Subtitle D well MW-209 and sidegradient well B-101R. These results are attributed to changes in groundwater elevations
due to the on-site gradient control system. Sulfate exceeded the PAL in the sample collected from B-131BR. The results are related to near surface water quality changes associated with protective cover soils placed above the liner during final cap
construction. Veolia completed activities to address these issues in 2009. Select low level VOCs were also detected in samples collected from the gradient control system. Many of the VOCs were below the LOQ. Low level VOCs are periodically detected
in the gradient control system at the site. All of the rest of the wells, remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring was conducted at this facility in January 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality
between November 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. Emerald Park Landfill, Muskego, WI  This is an active MSW landfill that was constructed on a greenfield site. The site began operation in 1994. The landfill facility is a fully
engineered Subtitle D facility with a composite liner, full leachate and landfill gas collection system, and an underlying gradient control system. The site is currently undergoing permitting for a horizontal expansion. The last monitoring event
with data and report was completed in October 2011. 33 non-Subtitle D wells, 8 Subtitle D wells, 11 private wells and 2 gradient control monitoring 13 DRAFT

points are sampled semi-annually. Samples are collected for indicator parameters,
select metals and VOCs. Sodium, alkalinity, specific conductance and hardness in select wells were elevated during this event. Exceedances of sulfate and chloride during the October 2011 event are attributed to natural conditions. Toluene and carbon
disulfide were the only VOCs present were detected at low levels, between the LOD and LOQ. The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes groundwater quality between the October 2011 report
and the January 2012 sampling. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring Future Parkland  This is a fully engineered foundry sand landfill that is currently closed and located adjacent to and part of the Emerald Park Landfill
facility. This facility contains approximately 317,000 cubic yards of foundry sand wastes and operated between the years 1987 to 1999. The landfill is clay lined with a leachate collection system. Environmental monitoring is conducted for this site.
The site is monitored on an annual basis (the last event with available data and report was completed November 2011. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. Glacier Ridge Landfill, Horicon, WI  This is a fully engineered, active
MSW landfill. The north landfill footprint is closed and the southern landfill footprint is active. A groundwater event with available data and report was completed and submitted to WNDR for sampling conducted in October 2011. The only exceedances
in groundwater samples are a result of VOC contamination that is associated with the adjacent LGRL Superfund Landfill facility (see previous discussion. above) VOCs. Vinyl chloride exceeded the regulatory standards in two monitoring wells located
immediately adjacent to LGRL . Other detections include VOCs that were below the LOQ; therefore, the results are considered estimated and do not exceed the State 14 DRAFT

groundwater standards. These VOCs include tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene
(TCE), 1, 2-dichloropropane and vinyl chloride in select wells. Chloride was also detected above the standards in samples collected from 2 wells located along adjacent County Highway V . Specific conductance, alkalinity and/or hardness
concentrations were present above the standard in samples collected from 9 wells. The latest groundwater monitoring event conducted at this facility was in April 2012. There was no significant change in groundwater monitoring data between the
October 2011 report and the April 2012 sampling.Hickory Meadows Landfill, Hilbert, WI  This is an active MSW landfill that was constructed on a greenfield site. Construction for the facility began in 1998. The landfill facility is fully
engineered with a composite liner, full leachate and landfill gas collection system. The site is currently undergoing permitting for a vertical and horizontal expansion. A groundwater monitoring event with available data and report was completed in
June 2011. There are several hydrogeologic zones that are monitored at the site. Most of the ground water monitoring wells are sampled semi-annually. All wells remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in
December 2011. There were no significant changes in the groundwater monitoring data between the June 2011 report and December 2011 sampling. Mallard Ridge Landfill  Mallard Ridge RDF consists of two closed disposal areas and two active
disposal areas. Greidanus Landfill/Closed Mallard Ridge Landfill  The Greidanus Landfill was originally approved in 1970 as a 20-acre sanitary landfill to accept MSW. The Greidanus Landfill is unlined with no leachate drainage layer. In 1980,
WDNR approved a plan for phased 15 DRAFT

closure of the non-engineered fill area and establishment of an engineered landfill.
The Greidanus Landfill is closed with a compacted clay cover. The 29-acre expansion, referred to as Mallard Ridge Landfill, was approved for operation in 1984. The Mallard Ridge Landfill has a 5 foot compacted clay liner and a full leachate
collection system. This landfill partially overlays the Greidanus Landfill. This landfill is closed with a compacted clay cap. This combined landfill has a LFG collection system. Mallard Ridge North Expansion/South Expansion  Two expansions, a
40-acre North Expansion and a 48-acre expansion South Expansion were permitted in 1993 and 2005, respectively. Both of these landfills are considered active. Both the Northern and Southern Expansions have composite liners and leachate collection
systems. The Northern Expansion is partially capped with a composite cover system. Both of these expansion areas have full active LFG collection systems. There are 45 groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers associated with the landfill facility
that are monitored on a semi-annual basis (March and September). In addition, there are 7 off-site private wells that are monitored by local agreement in June each year. PCE and TCE were found in low concentrations and are indicative of a
well-defined VOC plum located downgradient (southeast) of the closed Greidanus Landfill. PCE and TCE have been identified in a number of wells between the Greidanus Landfill and the property line. Data indicate that PCE and TCE were historically
detected in a private well (PW-26) located just beyond the property line downgradient of the VOC plume, and in the Recycling Center well on the southern fringe of the plume. However, recent data from downgradient well PW-26 has been non-detect for
VOCs . One groundwater monitoring well (W-2R) located in the plume area had an increasing TCE concentration over the past 5 to 6 years. 16 DRAFT

Seven Mile Creek Landfill, Eau Claire, WI  This is an active MSW landfill (Sector
2) that is fully lined, has a full leachate and active gas collection system. This site has operated from 1986 to the present. The site contains a closed landfill (Sector 1) that has a four foot clay liner with a full leachate and active gas
extraction system. The closed site operated from 1978 to 1989. The site has a low permeable soil final cover; either papermill sludge or two feet of compacted clay. The site has a ground water monitoring network. There have been some historic (15
years +/-) VOC detections and iron in several downgradient on site monitoring wells. Iron has been reported in an upgradient well that is constructed with an iron casing. The other VOCs that have been detected in wells are located on the other side
of Seven Mile Creek (adjacent to and west of the landfill). The source of these VOCs is unknown. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. Tork Landfill, Wisconsin Rapids, WI  This was a MSW landfill that accepted waste from
approximately 1970 to 1988 and is located on the Cranberry Creek Landfill facility property. This landfill is located in close proximity to an on-site granite quarry and groundwater flow is affected by quarrying operations. The landfill does not
have a liner; however, it has a clay cut-off wall and perimeter groundwater gradient control system installed around the landfill. The landfill has an active gas extraction system. Groundwater monitoring is conducted from 18 wells. A groundwater
monitoring event with available data and report was completed in October 2011. During this event, samples from 17 DRAFT

4 wells were analyzed for field parameters and the remaining wells were sampled for
field parameters and indicator parameters. Five wells are analyzed semi-annually for VOCs. The following parameter/well combinations exceeded standards: Sulfate levels were exceeded in the sample collected from the upgradient ground water monitoring
well B-6A. Chloride levels in samples collected from B-35 and B-38R exceeded the groundwater standard. Well B-38R is located upgradient of the landfill. Low level VOCs, benzene and xylenes, were detected in the sample collected from B-38R. These
VOCs have been detected at similar concentrations since the well was installed in 2010. All wells remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes in the
groundwater data between the October 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. Tork Alum Landfill, Wisconsin Rapids, WI  This is an industrial waste landfill that began operation as early as the 1950s and closed in the early 1980s and is also
located on the Cranberry Creek Landfill facility property. The site is approximately 20-acres in area and contains approximately 200,000 cubic yards of alum residue from the production of alum for water treatment from aluminum-rich clay by Allied
Chemical. Veolia and Honeywell (the successor company to Allied Chemical) monitors the groundwater from 20 wells located on and off of the property. A low permeable soil final cover was placed on the landfill in 1983. An Environmental Contamination
Assessment (ECA) was conducted in 1997. As part of this evaluation, alum residue pore water was tested. The results indicated the pore water had low pH and contained sulfate and several metals that are pH dependant including aluminum, beryllium and
nickel. Elevated concentrations of these metals in groundwater are due to a combination of metals present in the alum residue and metals dissolved from the native soils due to the low pH 18 DRAFT

alum sludge residual. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed
in October 2011. Aluminum, nickel and sulfate exceeded their respective groundwater standards in select wells. Sulfate exceeded the standard in 8 wells. Nickel exceeded the standard in 5 wells. Aluminum exceeded the standard in 11 wells. Beryllium
exceeded the standard in 7 wells; however, the results were all below the LOQ. All wells remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes in the groundwater data
between the October 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. EASTERN REGION  ALABAMA Cedar Hill Landfill, Ragland, AL  This is a MSW landfill located in Ragland, Alabama. The original unlined landfill operated from 1974 to 1997. The
landfill site was a historic coal strip mining operation. As part of a landfill expansion permit, a geosynthetic liner was added in 1997 on top of and adjacent to the unlined waste mound. To control LFG migration and collect LFG under the liner
system, an active LFG collection and control system was installed. LFG collection was installed in the vertical expansion and became operational in 1999. Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually. LFG appears to have caused a potential SSI
(statistically significant increase) for 1, 2-dichloroethene in a groundwater sample collected from GWC-4R during the September 2010 groundwater monitoring event. A methane reading was taken in the headspace of the well in December 2010 and the
result was 23% of the (Lower Explosive Limit)LEL. VES submitted an alternate source demonstration (ASD) report to ADEM indicating that LFG was causing the SSI and that we would be upgrading the LFG system in this area in 2011. A monitoring event
with available data and report was completed in 19 DRAFT

September 2011. Prior to the gas system upgrades, this VOC was present in the water
sample but was below the preliminary screening concentration. Even though the last sample had a lower VOC detection, a LFG well was installed in this area, in addition to 10 other LFG wells that were added across the site in 2011/2012?. This one gas
well was installed in December 2011 and was connected to the operating system immediately. The remainder of the wells were connected in March 2012. The spring 2012 sampling indicated no VOC contamination in monitoring well GWC-4R. All wells at the
Site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater quality between the December 2011 report and the March 2012 sampling. Eagle Bluff Landfill, Peterson, AL  This is an active construction and demolition (C&D) landfill which began
operation in 1988. The landfill is not required to have a liner, gas or leachate collection systems. The site is located in a former soil strip mine and is hydraulically upgradient and adjacent to Hurricane Creek. There is no groundwater monitoring
required for this landfill facility. Star Ridge Landfill, Moody, AL  This is a MSW landfill located in Moody, Alabama. The site consists of a closed unlined landfill, a closed C&D landfill and an active Subtitle D landfill. The landfill
facility is located in an historic coal strip mine. The active site has a double synthetic liner and leachate collection system that is required per the city of Moody Local Agreement. The site also has a permitted C & D landfill that is not in
operation. Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually. The last monitoring event with available data and report was completed in September 2011. There were no VOC detections in the samples collected and all of the metals results were below
preliminary screening values. 20 DRAFT

Cobalt for the September 2011 sample collected from one location was listed as a
potential SSI. The September 2011 result was similar to historic detections in this well. The background samples had a higher detection limit (up to 500 ug/L and this result was 47 ug/L); therefore, it is unknown whether cobalt was present in
background samples at concentrations similar to this detection. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring and the site will evaluate the need to modify background data. The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in March 2012.
There were no significant changes in the groundwater quality between the September 2011 report and the March 2012 sampling. EASTERN REGION  BAHAMAS Pine Ridge Landfill, Grand Bahama  This is an active MSW landfill located in Freeport,
Grand Bahamas. This site began operations in 2002. The site is fully lined and has a leachate and gas collection system. Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually (February and August) from four wells located around the facility. The results
are compared to USEPA Secondary Drinking Water Standards (NSDWA) even though this is not a US Territory. There have been several groundwater exceedances as a result of a large hurricane events and flooding over this area of the island. Currently,
there are only 2 NSDWA exceedances, iron in the sample collected from MW-1A and TDS in the sample from MW-3A. The TDS has been in exceedance since 2004 and is the result of several very large hurricane events that occurred that year. The iron in the
sample collected from MW-1A has been elevated over the last 6 events and has been above the standard sporadically since monitoring began. It is unclear as to the source of the iron. The parameter will continue to be monitored and a determination
will be made as to whether this is something that needs to be addressed. 21 DRAFT

EASTERN REGION  FLORIDA Cypress Acres Landfill, Ocala, FL  This is an
active C&D landfill located in Ocala, Florida. The landfill does not have a liner, leachate or gas extraction system. The site began operation as a sand and gravel pit and in 1991 was permitted as an approximately 37-acre C& D landfill.
Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually (January and July). There have been detects of several inorganic parameters in both upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells on site. Exceedances during the July 2011 event included iron, aluminum,
TDS, pH, benzene and mercury in select wells. All wells with exceedances except for one well are located hydraulically upgradient of the landfill. There has been correspondence with FDEP regarding the mercury exceedance in one well along with
delineation of extent, in this area. The site is located adjacent to a railroad line. This well is new to the monitoring program and the initial sampling indicated benzene detections. The benzene concentrations have increased slightly over time;
however, this well is also upgradient of the landfill. Aluminum and iron are naturally occurring in the subsurface materials of the site and detected regularly in upgradient and downgradient wells. All wells at the site remain in detection
monitoring. EASTERN REGION  GEORGIA Taylor County Landfill, Mauk, GA  This is a fully engineered, active MSW landfill with gas and leachate extraction systems located on a former greenfield site. The site began operation in 22 DRAFT

1989. There are 21 wells that were sampled in July 2011. Groundwater samples are
collected semi-annually (January and July). During the last monitoring event with available data and report (July 2011), 8 wells were dry; there typically are many wells dry during every event. There were no VOCs detected and there were no MCL
exceedances and no SSIs. All wells at the Site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring even was conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality between the July 2011 report and the
January 2012 sampling. LFG migration has occurred on the south side of the landfill since 1993, south of cells 1, 2 and 3; Veolia submitted and implemented an Updated Methane Migration Plan in 2009 to increase LFG collection from the landfill. As of
March 2012, Veolia began applying a small vacuum to an existing passive cut-off trench located outside the waste boundary and this will be active in April 2012. Prior to January 2012, there were three consecutive months without a regulatory
exceedance and only one of the affected gas probes had an exceedance in January and February 2012. The remaining 6 gas probes have not had an exceedance since September 2011. Six consecutive months without an exceedance is required to resolve the
LFG migration issue. Pecan Row Landfill, Valdosta, GA  This is a fully engineered active MSW landfill with gas and leachate extraction system throughout. The site began operation in 1991. This landfill is nearing closure, with full closure
using a composite cover system anticipated in early 2013. This landfill is located within 2,000 feet of the Evergreen Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia. There are 11 wells monitored semi-annually and the latest event with available data and report was
completed July 2011, (event number 36). There were no VOCs detected; however, several metals were detected in samples collected during this event but none exceed MCLs, and none are SSIs All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The
latest groundwater monitoring even was 23 DRAFT

conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality
between the July 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. Evergreen Landfill, Valdosta, GA  This is a former greenfield site that was developed as an active MSW landfill with a full composite liner with leachate and gas extraction systems.
The site began operation in 2006 in a 0.5-acre cell which was constructed to keep the regulatory permit active. Only inert waste was placed in the cell between 2006 and 2010. In 2010 the entire 22-acre cell 4 was constructed and MSW waste was first
placed in Evergreen Landfill on November 29, 2010. The site is located adjacent to Pecan Row Landfill in Valdosta, Georgia. There are 7 wells monitored semi-annually and a monitoring event with available data and report was completed in July
2011 (event #14). There were no VOCs detected in any samples collected. There were no exceedances of MCLs for metals and none of the four metals present above the detection limit are SSIs. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The
latest groundwater monitoring even was conducted in January 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality between the July 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. EASTERN REGION  INDIANA Blackfoot Landfill, Winslow, IN
 This is a MSW landfill located in Winslow, Indiana (Pike County). The site has operated from 1990 to the present. The site has a liner, leachate and gas collection system. There are two Hydrogeologic zones monitored by 13 wells. Ten wells are
installed in a shallow zone and 3 wells in a deeper zone. Groundwater is sampled semi-annually. A event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. No VOCs were present above the detection limit and there were no SSIs for any
parameter in any well during 24 DRAFT

this event. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The latest
groundwater monitoring even was conducted in May 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality between the November 2011 report and the May 2012 sampling. Hoosier Landfill, Claypool, IN  There are two MSW landfills located at
this facility. One landfill (Hoosier #1) is fully closed (2008) and the other (Hoosier #2) is currently active. Hoosier Landfill #1  This is a closed MSW landfill located adjacent to Hoosier #2 in Claypool, Indiana. This site was operated
from 1971 until closure in 2008. Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed in October 2011. Six wells monitor the shallow zone and six wells monitor a deeper zone around the
landfill. The results of the October 2011 event indicate that there were no VOCs present in any of the samples. Dissolved arsenic was above the MCL in samples collected from two wells; however, the results from this event were similar to historic
results. Sulfate exceeded the normal control limit and Shewhart limit in one sample collected during this event. All of the wells at the site remain in detection monitoring and it is not anticipated that any of these results will require any of the
wells to go into assessment monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring even was conducted in April 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality between the October 2011 report and the April 2012 sampling. Hoosier Landfill #2
 This is an active MSW landfill located adjacent to Hoosier #1 landfill. This portion of the site began operating in 2007 and has a full composite liner and leachate collection system. Groundwater samples are collected semi-annually. The last
monitoring event with available data and report was completed in October 2011. There are a total of 5 wells installed at the site. Two wells monitor the shallow zone and three wells monitor 25 DRAFT

a deeper zone. There were no VOCs detected during the last event. Dissolved arsenic was
present above the MCL in one sample. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring even was conducted in April 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality between the October 2011 report
and the April 2012 sampling. EASTERN REGION  KENTUCKY Blue Ridge Landfill, Irvine, KY  This is a MSW landfill located in Irvine, Kentucky (Estill County) which began operation in 1984. The landfill includes two landfill units, a
Residential landfill (pre-Subtitle D landfill that was closed in 1995) and a Contained Landfill (which was permitted in the mid-1990s). The Contained landfill is a Subtitle D landfill with a composite liner system. An active LFG collection system
was installed in the Contained landfill in 2005. The Residential landfill contains passive vent flares. The Residential landfill is a pre-Subtitle D landfill that was constructed with a soil liner and leachate collection system. Five wells monitor
one hydrogeologic zone at this Site. Groundwater samples are collected quarterly. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed in November 2011. The sample from MW-7 had chloride and TOX concentrations that exceed their intra-well
prediction limits and exhibit an increasing trend. MW-7 is the deepest well at the site and is installed in the New Albany shale formation. Water from this zone of the aquifer is highly mineralized and is high in salts. This salt zone is below the
fresh groundwater zone that all of the other wells at the Site monitor. In addition, elevated chloride can positively bias TOX results. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring 26 DRAFT

even was conducted in May 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater
quality between the November 2011 report and the May 2012 sampling. Morehead Landfill, Morehead, KY  There are three closed Residential landfill units and an active Contained MSW landfill located in Morehead, Kentucky (Rowan County) which
began operation in 1974. The Residential landfills were constructed with soil liner and leachate collection systems. The solid waste permit for the Contained landfill is a Subtitle D landfill with a composite liner system. An active LFG extraction
system consisting of 16 vertical extraction wells was installed in 2009. There are 8 wells that monitor a single hydrogeologic zone at this Site. Groundwater samples are collected quarterly. A sampling event with available data and report was
completed in October 2011 and there were no VOC detections and no SSIs. All wells at the Site remain in detection monitoring. The latest groundwater monitoring even was conducted in May 2012. There were no significant changes in groundwater quality
between the November 2011 report and the May 2012 sampling. EASTERN REGION  MICHIGAN Arbor Hills Landfill, Northville, MI  There are two regulated MSW portions of the site; Arbor Hills East and Arbor Hills West that have operated from
1970 to the present. Arbor Hills East operated from 1970 to 1990 and was fully closed in 1990. Groundwater impacts have historically occurred related to this portion of the site. The Arbor Hills East landfill does not have a base liner in place, has
a slurry wall, gradient control and an active gas extraction system. Arbor Hills East entered into a consent order in the late 1980s which required remedial activities that included slurry wall, gradient control, a pump and treat groundwater
control system, an 27 DRAFT

active gas collection system and final closure. Arbor Hills East has a dual gas and
leachate extraction wells in place. Republic Services is responsible for all long term care, environmental compliance and any remedial activities associated with the Arbor Hills East portion of the landfill. Veolia is responsible for Arbor Hills
West Environmental Compliance. Arbor Hills West has a double composite liner system and an active gas extraction system. The active gas extraction system for both the Arbor Hills East and Arbor Hills West portions of the site are owned, installed,
and operated by Republic Services. VES does not have responsibility for the LFGTE system. Groundwater samples are collected quarterly around Arbor Hills West by Veolias consultants. A monitoring event was conducted in October 2011. There are 3
groundwater zones monitored around the landfill, the upper, intermediate and lower zones. The only continuous aquifer beneath the site is the lower zone. During the last monitoring event with available data and report 4Q2011 (October 2011) 3 upper
zone wells, 2 intermediate zone wells and 15 deep aquifer wells were sampled. VOCs are sampled at all site wells on a semi-annual basis. There are exceedances of the statistical prediction limit for inorganic and indicator parameters (chloride,
dissolved barium and arsenic, ammonia and TDS) for all 3 zones. Samples which exceeded for 1 to 5 parameters included 4 upgradient wells1 in the upper zone and 3 installed in the lower zone; 2 sidegradient wells both installed in the lower
zone; and downgradient wells  6 installed in the lower zone and 1 installed in the intermediate zone. In all instances, an Alternate Source Demonstration (ASD) was provided. 28 DRAFT

The latest groundwater monitoring event was conducted in January 2012. There were no
significant changes in groundwater quality between the October 2011 report and the January 2012 sampling. LFG has been detected in two gas monitoring probes at the southeast corner of the closed Arbor Hills East landfill unit. This issue is Republic
Services responsibility. There are sporadic detections above regulatory levels. A 2002 Consent Order is in place that addresses the landfill gas migration issues for Arbor Hills East. Corrective measures include increased LFG collection within the
waste mass in the area of the gas migration. EASTERN REGION  PENNSYLVANIA Chestnut Valley, McClellandtown, PA  This site was formerly a coal strip mine. The site began operation as a landfill in 1959. Early portions of the landfill had
limited engineering features. Later development included full composite base liner system, leachate and gas collection. Groundwater is sampled quarterly for this facility. The site had 5 wells that have had low yields. Four mine level piezometers
were installed in an attempt to encounter a zone with greater yield. The site performed assessment monitoring in 1994 and 1995 to evaluate conditions around the upgradient well. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed third
quarter 2011. During this event, samples were collected from 2 wells and 1 mine level piezometer. Analytical testing includes testing for indicator parameters, select metal quarterly and a full list of metals 29 DRAFT

annually and VOCs on a quarterly basis. There have been trace levels of organic
compounds present in samples collected from the site; however, none were present during this last event. There have been ammonia and chloride detections however, no SSIs. Total iron and manganese have been elevated; The pH is elevated in the samples
collected from one well. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. LFG migration has occurred along the southwest side of Area 2B and was a historic site condition associated with the limited engineering controls in portions of the
facility and were initially detected in the 1990s. The source was identified as the old unlined portion of the landfill and the former coal strip mine located on the property. The subsurface gas migration was mitigated with a vacuum applied to
migration control wells installed just outside the limits of waste. Greentree Landfill, Kersey, PA  There are 2 landfills at this Site, a closed landfill (GT-1) and an active landfill (GT-2). Both landfills are fully engineered with composite
base liners, gas and leachate extraction systems. The site began operating in GT-1 in 1986 and closed in 2006. Waste disposal began in GT-2 in 2000. There are 13 wells and 1 spring sampled quarterly for the closed landfill and 16 wells sampled for
the active or expansion area. A monitoring event with available data and report was completed in October 2011 and there were several metals results that exceeded Act 2 residential drinking water standards. The metals that exceeded standards included
total and dissolved manganese, total nickel and total cobalt. All wells at the site remain in detection monitoring. Lancaster Landfill, Elizabethtown, PA  This is an active construction and demolition material landfill that began operation in
1996. The landfill has a full composite liner and leachate and 30 DRAFT

collection system and a composite final cover system. The site is 126-acres with
45.9-acres permitted for waste disposal. Eight groundwater monitoring wells are sampled along with surface water and groundwater discharge pipes being sampled on a quarterly basis. During the August 2011 monitoring event, all of the wells, the
surface water points and one of the groundwater discharge pipes were sampled. All wells remain in detection monitoring. EASTERN REGION  OTHER SITES Groveland TS, Groveland, FL  This Hauling operation and Transfer Station facility is no
longer owned by Veolia; however, Veolia maintains responsibility for some environmental investigations and conditions at the facility. Veolia had set aside $525,000 to investigate and address these areas. There were 3 areas of concern identified by
the current owner when the property sale was being negotiated. These areas include a small area along a fence with staining that was due to a release by the adjacent property owner, Industrial Sterilization Laboratories (ISL). $50,000 was set aside
for the ISL work. A larger portion of the property has been affected by another adjacent property owner, Howard Fertilizer (Howard). $300,000 was set aside for potential Howard Fertilizer work. The third area of concern, was a small area around the
fueling tank/truck wash bay that may have been the result of small releases either when Veolia owned the property or from the former ownership. $175,000 was set aside for the tank/wash bay area work. As of the April, 2012, approximately $43,000 has
been spent to address these three projects. 31 DRAFT

Veolia has received a comfort letter from FDEP which indicates that they
believe that the Howard area documented conditions appear to be related to Howard. Howard has an ongoing investigation and remedial action on their property. ISL has removed the stained soil in this area and disposed of it off-site. Golder
Associates has sampled the area soil and groundwater and found that the removal addressed the former release. As of the date of this summary, the conditions in the vicinity of the tank and truck bay on the property have been investigated. There is a
small area of soil and groundwater impacts that need to be addressed. The impact consists of low level benzene and total petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the shallow soil and groundwater and is very limited in extent. Golder Associates has
been retained to address these conditions and has provided a cost estimate for the remediation of this area. The spring 2012 groundwater monitoring results had no detects of benzene or total petroleum hydrocarbons, as a result no groundwater
remedial work is anticipated. Soil sampling and testing work is on going. We anticipate that the amount set aside for this work will be sufficient to close out all outstanding issues. Jersey City TS, 264 Broadway Ave., Jersey City, NJ  This is
a transfer station facility which Veolia purchased in 1999 through purchasing all shares of the former owner. There was a holdback at the time of the purchase which has been held by Veolia, and is to be released back to the former shareholders upon
completion of remedial activities related to leaking underground diesel fuel storage tanks which were removed in 1999. The former shareholders have hired numerous consultants to address the environmental conditions since 1999. The current state of
32 DRAFT

the property is that there is free product which ranges from 0.01 feet to 0.91 feet in
3 of the 9 monitoring wells at the property. In 2009, the former owners consultants conducted a pilot test which included the use of BioSolve surfactant which was used to determine if it would release the free product contained in the soil and
would be a successful remedial alternative. The consultant conducted the pilot test and attempted to use it as the remedial alternative for the site. They injected the product into the subsurface and extracted some water containing the chemical.
They collected soil and groundwater samples immediately after the injections and collected water samples about 10 weeks after the injections. No other sampling was conducted for nearly 2 years. When they came back to the site (to conduct additional
soil and groundwater sampling that NJDEP required) they found free product in wells MW-1 through MW-5 and MW-9 (in 6 of the 9 wells at the site). No additional work was conducted by the former shareholders until May 2011 when they hired a new
consultant who indicated they would be doing subsurface delineation of the extent of contamination on the property and conduct free product removal. They collected some soil and water samples from temporary wells installed in Geoprobes in August
2011 with one additional boring in November 2011. Veolia has since hired a consultant (Golder) and taken control of the investigation and potential remedial work of the site There is free product where none was present before., Areas they had
historically cleaned up to nearly acceptable standards,, now have free product. The investigation will include delineation of the extent of free product, soil and groundwater contamination, removal of the free product and likely some form of
groundwater treatment. 33 DRAFT

Veolia held back approximately $500,000 when the facility was purchased in 1999. This
money has also accrued significant interest. This money was to be released to the former shareholders upon receipt of a no further action for the environmental conditions. The plan is to use this money to conduct the investigation and remedial
action. New Jersey regulations have changed significantly since the investigation began and now there is a licensed site remediation professional that will be taking over the work and providing a RAO to NJDEP. Veolia has contracted with Golder
Associates as the LSRP. COMPLIANCE ISSUES Greentree NPDS permit, PA  On January 13, 2012 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued a NOV to the Greentree Landfill in Kersey, PA. The violation was for
exceedances (NPDES permit) relating to the onsite leachate treatment plant discharges. The discharge limit exceedances were self-reported and involve arsenic and total suspended solids measurements. In addition, the site has utilized on-site storage
of leachate during 2011. On-site storage can only be utilized under very short time periods in Pennsylvania. As a result, this issue is also under consideration. The site is also in the process of upgrading the treatment plant. A final Consent Order
and agreement was reached on June 29, 2012 and was submitted to the PA DEP for final signature. Greentree Solid Waste permit, PA  On February 13, 2012 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued a NOV to
the Greentree Landfill in Kersey, PA. The violation was for utilizing more than 25% of the total leachate storage capacity for flow equalization on a regular basis as specified by 25 Pa. Code 273.275 (b). A final Consent Order 34 DRAFT

and agreement was reached on June 29, 2012 and was submitted to the PA DEP for
final signature. Orchard Hills Odors, IL  In the spring of 2009, the Orchard Hills landfill located south of Rockford IL received a notice of violation for alleged odors from local regulators. At the same time, a nearby landfill competitor
also received a notice of violation for alleged odors. Given the proximity of the landfills and the lack of specific details from complainants, it was difficult to determine which facility was responsible for the alleged odors. In addition, based on
then recent analytical lab tests of the collected LFG which showed a significant increase in the sulfur bearing gases in the LFG stream, the Orchard Hills facility had exceeded its hourly SO2 emission limit from the combustion of collected LFG in
the facilitys flare, and needed to modify its air permit accordingly. On February 4, 2010 the Illinois Environmental Protection agency (IEPA) issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill in Davis Junction, IL for
permitted hourly emission level for SO2 as well as offsite odors. The site has responded, a permit modification was submitted to IEPA and a new permit was granted in the fall of 2011. The facility has undertaken a number of actions to deal with both
the SO2 and odor issues, many before receipt of the notice of violation. Air permit applications for increased SO2 emission limits and a new enclosed flare were submitted in June 2009. Modifications to these applications were made to add an H2S
treatment system based on follow-up discussions with the regulatory agency. In addition to / conjunction with necessary permitting activities, the landfill installed an odor misting system, H2S monitors additional gas collection infrastructure
consisting of vertical wells (temporary and permanent), multiple blowers, an H2S treatment facility and an additional 35 DRAFT

enclosed flare to enable greater quantities of landfill gas (including the H2S) to be
extracted and destructed and completed 40+ acres of final cover construction. The permit modifications were eventually granted by the IEPA allowing for construction and operation of the above items. It appears that these various changes and
improvements have led to the cessation of virtually all odor complaints and the facility is in compliance with its new SO2 emission limits. In July 2011, the IEPA, through the Illinois Attorney Generals Office (IAG), filed a civil complaint in
state court regarding these issues. Both before and after this filing, the parties have been engaged in significant negotiations regarding these issues. On a parallel track, the facility has also been involved in discussions with the US EPA on these
same concerns. These various negotiations have led to a high degree of agreement regarding operating issues at the landfill. However, there remains the question of whether the facility should pay a civil penalty and if so how much. The Attorney
Generals office verbally suggested an $180,000 monetary fine and additional monitoring. Further discussions with the IEPA and IAG will take place in late March, 2012. Pecan Row Safety Kleen Hazardous Waste, GA  On March 12, 2010 a
special waste customer Safety Kleen improperly disposed of hazardous waste materials at the Veolia ES Pecan Row landfill in Valdosta, GA. A subsequent notification, investigation, and remediation effort was undertaken. The site remediated the
situation in 2010, and the Georgia EPD approved the remediation report and indicated no further action is required by Pecan Row Landfill. Additional follow up and documentation was performed and the Georgia regulators approved of the process. The
on-site issues were resolved by waste removal and transport to a licensed hazardous waste landfill facility for final disposal. On May 18, 2010 the Georgia EPD issued a NOV and a draft Consent Order (CO). A draft $48,850 settlement was proposed
and the corrective action Work 36 DRAFT

Plan was accepted. Pecan Row responded to the draft CO on May 26, 2010 and
expressed objections to some of the allegations in the draft CO. The CO was not finalized. On September 13, 2010 the GPA EPD approved the final remediation and a no further action statement was provided. On March 12, 2012
outside legal counsel provided a legal opinion that no further action was needed on this matter and that the CO died at the GA EPD level. 37 DRAFT

SCHEDULE 3.12 CONTRACTS 3.12(a)(i): 1. Schedule No. 1000133586, dated
August 4, 2009, to Master Lease Agreement, by and between Chase Equipment Finance, Inc. and the Company, dated August 3, 2009. 3.12(a)(ii): Alabama 1. Contract for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, by and between Talladega County and
Waste Away, Inc. (Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc.), dated September 30, 1992. 2. Agreement, between City of Talladega and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated October 1, 2011. 3. Agreement to Renew or Extend Garbage and Trash
Collection Contract, by and between St. Clair County and Veolia Environmental Services Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated June 1, 2011. 4. Agreement, by and between Jefferson County Commission and Veolia Environmental Services Solid Waste
Southeast, Inc., dated March 22, 2007. 5. Contract to Provide Commercial Garbage Collection Services, by and between City of Pell City and Veolia Environmental Services, Inc., dated October 20, 2008, as amended. 6. Contract to Provide
Residential Garbage Collection Services, by and between City of Pell City and Veolia Environmental Services, Inc., dated October 20, 2008, as amended. 7. Landfill Gas Purchase and Sale Agreement, by and between Jenkins Brick Company and Onyx
Star Ridge Landfill, Inc., dated October 1, 2004. Florida 8. Solid Waste Collection Agreement, by and between Columbia County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated September 1, 2011. 9. Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
Collection Services Franchise Agreement, by and between City of Greenacres and Onyx Waste Services Southeast, Inc. (n/k/a Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc.), dated August 28, 2001, as amended. 10. Solid Waste and Recycling Collection
Franchise Agreement for Service Area 1, by and between Lee County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated March 9, 2010. 11. Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Franchise Agreement for Service Area 2, by and between Lee County and
Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated March 9, 2010. 12. Term Contract No. Y8-139A for Residential Solid Waste and Recyclable Collection Services  Lot 1  Zone 1, by and between Orange County, Florida and Veolia ES Solid Waste
Southeast, Inc., dated April 8, 2008. 50

13. Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Franchise Agreement (for Service Area 2), by
and between the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc, dated October 1, 2008. 14. Agreement, by and between Pinellas County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated August 20, 2008. 15.
Franchise Agreement, by and between City of Sanibel and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated April 27, 2010. 16. Service Area 2 Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement, by and between Seminole County and Veolia ES Solid Waste
Southeast, Inc., dated November 12, 2009. 17. Waste Transfer, Transportation and Disposal Agreement, by and between City of Ocala and Onyx Waste Services Southeast, Inc., dated January 21, 2003, as amended. 18. Agreement for Solid Waste
Collection, Disposal and Recycling Services, by and between Islamorada and Onyx Waste Services, dated October 1, 2003, as amended. 19. Contract to Provide Residential Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, by and between Etowah County and Veolia
Environmental Services, dated April 1, 2009. 20. Agreement for Residential Waste Collection and Disposal, by and between Calhoun County and Onyx Waste Services Southeast, Inc. and Superior Waste Services of Alabama, Inc., effective
October 1, 2002, as amended. 21. Agreement, by and between Pinellas County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated August 20, 2008. 22. Agreement for Landfill Operations at the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex, by and
between Sarasota County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., dated May 13, 2008. Georgia 23. Residential Solid Waste Contract, by and between City of Cordell and Onyx Waste Services Southeast, Inc., dated July 18, 2005 and amended
January 5, 2010. 24. Landfill Disposal Service Agreement, by and between Georgia Pacific Chemical LLC and Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast Inc, dated August 15, 2007. 25. Landfill Disposal Service Agreement, by and between Veolia ES Taylor
County Landfill and Blaze Recycling, dated July 6, 2010. 26. Landfill Disposal Service Agreement, by and between JEA and Veolia ES Solid Waste, Inc., dated May 1, 2009. 27. Amended and Restated Landfill Gas Sales Agreement, by and between
Veolia ES Taylor County Landfill, LLC and Bio Energy (Georgia), LLC, dated February 1, 2011. 28. Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement, by and between ESG Biofuels (Southern Georgia) Company and Veolia ES Pecan Row Landfill, Inc., dated
April 20, 2012. 51

Illinois 29. Agreement, by and between City of Batavia and Veolia ES Solid Waste
Midwest, LLC, dated June 16, 2008. 30. Contract, by and between City of Darien and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated February 7, 2011. 31. Volume-Based Residential Solid Waste & Recycling Services Agreement, by and between
City of Highland Park and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated July 26, 2010. 32. Refuse, Recyclables & Landscape Waste Collection & Disposal Services Agreement, by and between Village of Oak Lawn and Veolia ES Solid
Waste Midwest, LLC, dated May 1, 2006. 33. Contract, by and between City of St. Charles and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated August 25, 2010. 34. Municipal Contract, by and between Village of Streamwood and Veolia ES Solid Waste
Midwest, LLC, dated May 20, 2010. 35. City of Waukegan Waste & Recyclables Collection, Transportation and Management Agreement, by and between City of Waukegan and Onyx Waste Services Midwest, Inc., dated December 1, 2003, and
First Amendment to Waste and Recyclables Collection, Transportation and Management Agreement, by and between City of Waukegan and Onyx Waste Services Midwest, Inc. (n/k/a Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC), dated October 20, 2008. 36.
Agreement for Residential Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Service, by and between the City of Wheaton and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated April 7, 2008. 37. Residential Solid Waste Agreement, by and between Village of Wilmette and
Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated November 1, 2009. 38. Contract for United City of Yorkville Garbage, Refuse, Recycling and Yard Waste Collection, by and between United City of Yorkville and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated
May 1, 2007. 39. Waste, Recyclables and Yard Waste Collection, Transportation and Management Agreement, by and between City of Zion and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated September 27, 2010. 40. Waste Disposal and Transfer Station
Contract, among Groot Recycling and Waste Services, Inc., Onyx Waste Services Midwest, Inc., Onyx Zion Landfill, Inc. and Onyx Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc., dated March 25, 2003. 41. Landfill Disposal Service Agreement, by and between Recycling
Systems, Inc. and Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc., dated September 23, 2008. 42. Transfer Station Disposal Service Agreement, by and between Lake Shore Waste Services, LLC and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated October 23,
2009. 43. Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement, by and between Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc., dated December 10, 2010. 52

58. Contract for Collection of Refuse and Transfer Station Operation, by and between
City of Pontiac and Onyx Waste Services of Michigan, Inc, dated June 28, 2004. 59. Landfill Disposal Service Agreement, by and between Republic Waste and Veolia ES Arbor Hills Landfill, dated September 10, 2008. 60. Landfill Disposal
Service Agreement, by and between Duncan Disposal Systems and Veolia ES Arbor Hills Landfill, dated February 1, 2010. Minnesota 61. AgreementRefuse and Recyclable Collection, by and between City of White Bear Lake and Veolia Environmental
Services Solid Waste Midwest LLC, dated August 29, 2008. 62. Refuse Service Contract, by and between City of Columbia Heights and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, effective date January 1, 2010. 63. Agreement for Garbage, Refuse,
Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste Collection Services, by and between City of Blaine and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015. Missouri 64. Landfill Gas Purchase Contract, by and between
Superior Oak Ridge Landfill, Inc. and Toro Energy of Missouri, Inc., dated April 24, 2000. New Jersey 65. Agreement for Furnishing the Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste, by and between Borough of Ramsey and Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc.,
dated May 28, 2010. Pennsylvania 66. Contract, by and between Centre Region Council of Governments (acting on behalf of Bermer, College, Ferguson, Harris and Patton Townships) and Veolia ES Solid Waste of PA, Inc., dated August 24, 2009.
67. Municipal Waste Disposal Agreement, by and between Clearfield County and Veolia ES Greentree Landfill, LLC (as successor to Superior Waste Greentree Landfill), dated October 2, 2001 and amended January 10, 2011, and May 1, 2012.
68. Amended and Restated Landfill Disposal Services Agreement, among Appleton Papers Inc., NCR Corporation, Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, L.C., Veolia ES Hickory Meadows Landfill, LLC, and Veolia ES Solid Waste of North America, LLC, dated
August 29, 2008. 69. Master Service Agreement, by and between EOG Resources, Inc. and Veolia ES Solid Waste of PA Inc., dated January 27, 2011. 70. Master Services Agreement, by and between EQT Production Company and Veolia ES Solid Waste
of PA, Inc., dated March 23, 2011. 54

71. Master Service Agreement for Disposal of Waste, by and between Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation and affiliate companies and Veolia ES Solid Waste of PA, Inc., dated October 15, 2008. 72. Landfill Gas Rights Agreement, by and between Superior Greentree Landfill, LLC and Greentree Gas Producers, LP, effective as of
January 1, 2002. Wisconsin 73. Agreement, by and between City of Brookfield and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated November 19, 2008. 74. Nonrecyclable Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement, by and between Marathon County and
Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated September 28, 2009. 75. Recyclable Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement, by and between Marathon County and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated September 28, 2009. 76. Agreement, by and
between City of Brookfield and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated November 19, 2008. 77. Nonrecyclable Solid Waste Collection Service Agreement, by and between City of Wausau and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC, dated
September 28, 2009. 78. Contract, by and between Veolia ES Solid Waste Services Midwest, LLC and City of Waukesha, dated October 6, 2009. 79. Agreement for Hauling of Solid Waste and Recyclables from Collection Stations, Transportation of
Solid Waste from County Transfer Station to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility, and Disposal of Solid Wastes, by and between Dunn County Solid Waste and Recycling Management Board and Onyx Waste Services, Inc., dated January 1, 2005. 80.
Agreement for Hauling of Solid Waste and Recyclables from Collection Stations, Transportation of Solid Waste from County Transfer Station to Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility, and Disposal of Solid Wastes, by and between Dunn County Solid
Waste and Recycling Management Board and Onyx Waste Services, Inc. (now Veolia ES Solid Waste, Inc.), dated January 1, 2005. 81. Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclables Contract, by and between Village of Mount Pleasant and Veolia ES Solid Waste
Midwest, LLC, dated April 6, 2011. 82. Agreement for Residential Refuse, Recyclables, and Yard Waste Collection Services, by and between City of Sun Prairie and Green Valley Disposal/Republic Services Inc., dated July 18, 2007. 83. Portage
County Material Recovery Facility Operator Agreement, by and between Portage County Solid Waste Management Board and Onyx, dated December 19, 2002, as extended and amended. 84. Agreement for Disposal of Solid Waste, by and between City of West
Allis and Veolia Environmental Services of Muskego, Wisconsin, dated May 11, 1984, as amended. 55

Illinois 3. Alliance Agreement, by and between Veolia Environmental Services, Inc. and
Caterpillar Inc., dated January 1, 2010. 4. Contractor Agreement, by and between Mr. Bults Inc. and Onyx Waste Services, Inc., dated March 9, 2001 and amended February 7, 2006. Indiana 5. Independent Contractor Service
Agreement, by and between Elmer Buchta Trucking and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC., dated August 25, 2009. New Jersey 6. Transporter Agreement, between Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc. and Kephart Trucking, Inc., dated November 1,
2011. Wisconsin 7. Independent Contractor Transportation/Hauling Service Agreement, by and between Badgerland Express LLC and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest LLC, dated December 10, 2010. 3.12(b): Certain customers have claimed that certain
business practices of the Company Group in regards to billing for services included improper fees, including fuel surcharges, administrative fees, environmental fees and services charges, in violation of contract terms and applicable law. Certain of
these claims have been made in pending litigation described in Schedule 3.14. 62

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: June 19, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC vs. City of Evanston Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Veolia ES Solid City of Evanston
12/5/11 Michael Slattery Circuit Court of Cook County, Suit challenges improper and Complaint filed alleging the Evanston ordinances violate the City Code, Illinois law and Waste Midwest, Illinois, Chancery Division burdensome ordinances amounting
the Illinois Constitution for multiple reasons, not the least of which is a non-uniform tax LLC to a City attempt to improperly imposed on transfer station operations and a requirement to disclose confidential interfere with Veolias transfer
customer lists. Veolia entered into a stipulation with the City to suspend the provision station operation. requiring customer identity disclosure in exchange for continuing to pay the per ton fee under protest. Judge Preston required that Veolia
amend complaint and will give City leave to refile its answer thereto. Additional Additional Plaintiffs Defendants Opposing Lawyer : City Attorney Group Lawyer: Gerald Callaghan, Freeborn, Peters Reserve : $ None Insured : Yes No X Reservation of
Rights : Yes No X Deductible : $ N/A

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: June 19, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES BFI Waste Systems of N.A., LLC, et al. vs. Veolia ES Arbor Hills Landfill, Inc. Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure BFI Waste
Systems of Veolia ES Arbor Hills 1/17/2012 Michael Slattery U.S. District Court, Breach of contract related to Complaint has been filed and the parties have agreed to extend the time for Veolia N.A., LLC & Allied Waste Landfill, Inc.
Eastern District of Veolias permitted expansion to answer or otherwise plead through April 10, 2012. Parties have met to hear Industries, LLC Michigan allegedly causing BFI increased BFIs issues and have had preliminary
negotiations. We believe the BFI complaint financial and environmental is without basis and should be dismissed as a time-barred and impermissible exposure as a result of the Veolia collateral attack on the final expansion permit issued in December,
2009. Veolias 2009 expansion permit. position is that the duly permitted expansion is not an imminent threat to the environment as alleged and in fact is an environmental enhancement. Also, the increased gas infrastructure expense to BFI that
is complained of as a result of the expansion was an exposure allocated and assumed by BFI in the purchase and sale agreement in view of the fact that they reserved all benefits and responsibilities for the landfill gas system for the East (BFI
closed site) and West (Veolia) Landfills and expansions thereof. Accordingly, Veolia filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 2nd . At May Status Hearing, the Court indicated it would neither disturb the MDEQ permit nor did it see
environmental risk or urgency and was inclined against Republic on both counts. Continuing negotiations with Republic. The risk to Veolia is deemed to be negligible at this time based upon the investigation to date and the review of applicable law.
It is believed that if the matter cannot be resolved by settlement discussions, a Motion to Dismiss or possibly a Motion for Summary Judgment should resolve the litigation in Veolias favor. Estimate of legal fees and costs is premature and is
dependent on whether the case can be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion for Summary Judgment stage. Additional Plaintiffs Additional Defendants Reserve: Premature Insured: No X Reservation of Rights: No X Deductible: $ N/A Opposing
Lawyer: William Beck, Lathrop & Group Lawyer: Philip Comella, Gage Seyfarth & Shaw

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: June 12, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES Kurt F. Wilkening v. Veolia ES Pecan Row and Veolia ES Evergreen Landfill, Inc. Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Kurt
Wilkening Veolia ES Pecan Row 10/20/2010 Michael Slattery U.S. District Court for Middle Alleged breach of Royalty Agreement for failure Summary Judgment granted to Plaintiff on Damages and Declaratory Landfill, LLC and District of Georgia of Veolia
to pay royalties on beneficial use claims. A judgment was entered from which Veolia appealed to the Veolia ES Evergreen material. In addition, Declaratory Judgment Federal Court of Appeals (11th Circuit). Veolias brief is now not
due until Landfill, Inc. request declaring Evergreen Landfill as a June 26, and Wilkenings brief is due a month later. We are requesting contiguous expansion of Pecan Row. oral argument which will likely be in September or
October, and a decision several months later, so a decision from the Court will likely be rendered during the first quarter of 2013. The Court is requiring the parties to participate in a mediation to discuss potential settlement, but it is unlikely
that the case will be settled at this point. Additional Additional Plaintiffs Defendants Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: Wade H. Coleman Robert Norman, Jones Cork & Miller Rik Tozzi (appeal), Burr & Forman Reserve : $ $1.0M Insured
: Yes No X Reservation of Rights : Yes No X Deductible : $ N/A

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: June 12, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES D&J PLASTICS v. VEOLIA ES SOLID WASTE SOUTHEAST, INC., ET AL. Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure D&J Plastics, Veolia
ES Solid Waste October 26, Michael K. Superior Court of Muscogee D&J Plastics, a $300 per month permanent roll-off See Potthoff Inc. and Tower Southeast, Inc., Veolia 2009 Slattery County, State of Georgia customer has sued on behalf of a
purported class of Road Fitness, ES Solid Waste of similarly situated customers who were charged fuel Inc. North America, LLC surcharges, environmental fees, administrative fees and Veolia and other service fees in alleged breach of contracts
Environmental or otherwise in an improper or unlawful manner. A Services North second named plaintiff, Tower Road Fitness, Inc. America Corp. does not appear to have a Veolia service agreement, but the investigation continues. The claim requests
damages based upon the alleged unlawful assessment of such fees in breach of the customer service agreements and that these fees unjustly enrich Veolia. Suit also seeks treble damages and attorneys fees under the state RICO statute
as well as injunctive relief aimed at restraining Veolia from charging such fees in the future. Although suit was filed on October, 26, 2009, service of process was not accomplished until November 16, 2009. Plaintiffs have added Veolia ES Solid
Waste of North America, LLC and Veolia Environmental Services North America Corporation in an attempt to buttress a dubious state law RICO claim. The named Plaintiff in this claim is represented by the same law firm that filed the Potthoff
litigation in Alabama. Additional Additional Plaintiffs Defendants Reserve : $ Insured : Yes No ü Reservation of Rights : Yes No ü Deductible : $N/A
Opposing Lawyer : Robert G. Group Lawyer: Mike Slattery Methvin, Jr. and Rodney E. Miller McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C. Rik S. Tozzi, Burr & Forman LLP

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: June 12, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES Potthoff v. Veolia ES Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., et al Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Kevin Potthoff, et al. Veolia ES
Solid Waste February 2, 2009 Michael Slattery Civil Federal Court Potthoff, a $272.00 one-time roll-off Mediation was held before Judge Sheila Finnegan on May 14th. All of the Southeast, Inc., Veolia customer, sues on his own behalf
purported class action litigation lawsuits were settled on May 22nd and ES Solid Waste, Veolia as well as on behalf of other Judge Finnegan will continue to work with plaintiffs counsel and Veolia to Environmental Services, similarly
situated Alabama finalize the settlement. The settlement administration process is anticipated Veolia Environmental commercial customers (purported to take 6-8 months. Services North America class action) alleging that the Corp. Companys
billing and collection of The initial settlement pool is $15 million, out of which Plaintiffs counsel fees fuel, environmental and other and costs are to be paid, based upon their petition for fees. Typically, such surcharges and fees are
unlawful, in fee petitions seek 25%33 1/3% of the initial settlement pool. The breach of our service agreements remainder of the pool would be available for a claims-made payout with and unjustly enrich the Company to reversion rights in
Veolia for all pool funds remaining unclaimed, except for a the detriment of such Alabama minimum agreed payout of at least 25% of this claims pool. While there are customers. Suit was filed on no guarantees, the claims administration experts
typically experience February 2, 2009 and served on between 20% and 30% claims rates. The pro rata payout to customers February 5, 2009 could be $10-20 or less, which may lead claimants to think making a claim is not worth the effort of
filing a claim. The settlement will bind all class members unless they opt out of the settlement. If too many opt out, Veolia could cancel the settlement. If the settlement remains in place, however, Veolia will save millions in defense costs.
Veolia will bear the claims administration costs out of its pocket over and above the settlement pools, which are estimated at $450-600k. Additional Additional Defendants Plaintiffs Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C. Michael Slattery Rik S. Tozzi, Burr & Forman LLP Reserve: $ 500,000 Insured: No X Reservation of Rights: No Deductible: €

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: March 19, 2012 Country: USA VESSW SE v. Port Orange, FL, Waste Pro of FL Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Veolia ES Solid Waste City of Port Orange, FL
October 28, Amended Circuit Court of the Veolia is claiming a breach of Veolia is amending its complaint after failing to obtain a temporary restraining Southeast, Inc. Waste Pro of Florida, 2011 Complaint on 7th Judicial Circuit contract
against City of Port Orange order against the City and Waste Pro from signing a waste services contract. Inc. October 31, 2011 in Volusia County and tortious interference of a Florida contract against Waste Pro with respect to the City of Port
Orange Solid Waste and Recyclables collection contract. Veolia is seeking lost profits and other reliance damages after purchasing equipment and vehicles to perform the contract awarded to Veolia. Additional Plaintiffs Additional Defendants Opposing
Lawyer: Group Lawyer: Margaret Roberts, LaRue Williams; City Attorney Jim Morris, Waste Pro Attorney; Reserve: None Insured: No X Reservation of Rights: No Deductible: $None

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: July 3, 2012 Country: UNITED STATES Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor, LLC (PS&S) v. Paul DAmbrosio; John Does; ABC Corporation; Eastern Waste Services Corp (n/k/a Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc.) Jurisdiction
and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Paulus, Sokolowski & Paul DAmbrosio; 3/27/12 Superior Court of PS&S was hired by DAmbrosio as Veolia made a demand on DAmbrosio for
indemnification per DAmbrosios post- Sartor, LLC (PS&S) John Does New Jersey a consultant for cleanup work on closing obligations. DAmbrosio acknowledged its obligation and is working to ABC Corporation property owned by
Veolia. settle the claim. Eastern Waste Services DAmbrosio is required per a sale Corp (n/k/a Veolia ES agreement to remediate property it Solid Waste of NJ, Inc.) sold to Veolia. This is a breach of contract action for failure of
DAmbrosio to pay for services rendered by PS&S as part of DAmbrosios obligation to remediate Veolias property. PS&S is seeking $25,013.16 in unpaid fees. Additional Plaintiffs Additional Defendants Opposing Lawyer:
Group Lawyer: Reserve: Insured: No x Reservation of Rights: No Deductible: $

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: As of June 12, 2012 Country: USA JOHNSON, KENNETH: Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Kenneth SW/Veolia ES Solid May 7, 2012 EEOC EEOC (race discrimination)
Former employee alleges that he was subjected to different terms and conditions of Johnson Waste Midwest, LLC employment, and then terminated, on the basis of race; no action required at this time per EEOC on 5/15/12 Additional Additional Plaintiffs
Defendants Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: None Robert Muten Reserve : $0 Insured : Yes No x Reservation of Rights : Yes No Deductible : $0

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: As of June 12, 2012 Country: USA HERNANDEZ, LOUIS: Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Louis SW/Veolia ES Solid February 27, EEOC EEOC (race and color
discrimination, Former employee alleges that he was harassed and discriminated against on the Hernandez Waste Midwest, LLC 2012 retaliation) basis of his race and color, and that he was retaliated against for complaining of unwelcome contact from a
former employee; initial position statement filed on 4/13/12 Additional Additional Plaintiffs Defendants Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: None Robert Muten Reserve : $0 Insured : Yes No x Reservation of Rights : Yes No Deductible : $0

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES 
Solid Waste Date: As of June 12, 2012 Country: USA ANTHONY, HOWARD: Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Howard Anthony SW/Veolia ES Solid April 2, 2012 EEOC EEOC (race) Former
employee alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of race Waste Midwest, LLC when he was terminated for violating a last chance agreement and that he was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment because of his race;
position statement filed on 5/10/12 Additional Additional Plaintiffs Defendants Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: None Robert Muten Reserve : $0 Insured : Yes No x Reservation of Rights : Yes No Deductible : $0

LEGAL DEPARTMENT LITIGATION STATUS Business Group: VES ? Solid
Waste Date: As of June 12, 2012 Country: USA MOMPLEUS, PIERRE: Jurisdiction and Subject of Litigation Plaintiff Defendant Date filed Followed by Status Procedure Pierre SW/Veolia ES Solid March 19, 2012 EEOC EEOC (race and national origin Former
employee alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and Mompleus Waste Midwest, LLC discrimination) national origin when he was terminated for a safety violation; position statement filed on 5/7/12 Additional Additional
Plaintiffs Defendants Opposing Lawyer: Group Lawyer: None Robert Muten Reserve : $0 Insured : Yes No x Reservation of Rights : Yes No Deductible : $0

9. Veolia Environmental Services Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its
employees at its Chicago North (Northbrook) and Chicago Central (Melrose Park) divisions) contributes to the IAM National Pension Fund, National Pension Plan pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(3). 10.
Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(9). 11. Veolia ES Orchard Hills
Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Nos. 150, 150A, 150B and 150C pursuant to the collective bargaining
agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(9). 12. Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Retirement Enhancement Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement
set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(9). 13. Veolia ES Zion Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between set forth on Schedule
3.15(j)(15). 14. Veolia ES Zion Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Funds Retiree Medical Savings Plan pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on
Schedule 3.15(j)(15). 15. Veolia ES Zion Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Locals 150, 150A, 150B and 150C
pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(15). 16. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Waukegan Hauling division) contributes to the Teamsters Local Union
No. 301s Health and Welfare Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(14). 17. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Waukegan Hauling division)
contributes to the Teamsters Local 301 Pension Plan pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(14). 18. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Rockford Hauling
division and the Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc. part-time scale house operators) contributes to the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule
3.15(j)(11). 19. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Rockford Hauling division and the Veolia ES Orchard Hills Landfill, Inc. part-time scale house operators) contributes to the Construction Industry
Retirement Fund of Rockford, Illinois pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(11). 20. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Batavia Hauling, Batavia Transfer, Chicago
Central Hauling and Rolling Meadows Hauling divisions)

contributes to the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois Health and Welfare Fund
pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(2). 21. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Batavia Hauling, Batavia Transfer, Chicago Central Hauling and Rolling Meadows
Hauling divisions) contributes to the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois Pension Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(2). 22. Veolia ES Hoosier Landfill, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees
at its Kosciusko County, Indiana location) contributes to the Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Nos. 150, 150A, 150B and 150C pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth
on Schedule 3.15(j)(16). 23. Veolia ES Hoosier Landfill, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Kosciusko County, Indiana location) contributes to the Midwest Operating Engineers Welfare Funds Retiree Medical Savings Plan pursuant
to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(16). 24. Veolia ES Hoosier Landfill, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Kosciusko County, Indiana location) contributes to the Midwest Operating Engineers Pension
Trust Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Nos. 150, 150A, 150B and 150C pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(16). 25. Veolia ES Hoosier Landfill, LLC (on behalf of certain of its
employees at its Kosciusko County, Indiana location) contributes to the Midwest Operating Engineers Retirement Enhancement Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(16). 26. The Pontiac District of Veolia
 ES (Environmental Services) Solid Waste Midwest, LLC contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund Plan 176 pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule
3.15(j)(18). 27. The Pontiac District of Veolia  ES (Environmental Services) Solid Waste Midwest, LLC contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund pursuant to the
collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(18). 28. Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc. (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Hauling unit) contributes to the I.B.T. Local 945 Health and Welfare Fund pursuant to the
collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(20). 29. Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc. (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Hauling unit) contributes to the Local 945 I.B.T. Pension Plan pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(20). 30. Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc. (on behalf of certain of its employees at its Transfer Station unit) contributes to the I.B.T. Local 945 Health and Welfare Fund pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(19).

31. Veolia ES Solid Waste of NJ, Inc. (on behalf of certain of its employees at its
Transfer Station unit) contributes to the Local 945 I.B.T. Pension Plan pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(19). 32. Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC (on behalf of certain of its employees at its
Germantown, Wisconsin and Muskego, Wisconsin locations) contributes to the Wisconsin Health Fund for Plan A-1 pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(22). 33. Veolia ES Mallard Ridge Landfill, Inc. contributes,
on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Operating Engineers Local 139 Health Benefit Fund pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(23). 34. Veolia ES Mallard Ridge Landfill, Inc. contributes, on behalf of
certain of its employees, to the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement set forth on Schedule 3.15(j)(23). 35. Veolia ES Zion Landfill, Inc.
contributes, on behalf of certain of its employees, to the Teamsters Local 301 Pension Plan. 36. The Company Group has received notice, dated April 27, 2012, from the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois Pension Fund that the fund is
in critical status for the plan year beginning January 1, 2012. 37. The Company Group has received notice, dated April 27, 2012, from the Automobile Mechanics Local 701 Union and Industry Pension Fund that the fund is in critical
status for the plan year beginning January 1, 2012. 38. The Company Group has received notice, dated January 2012, from the Local 731 Private Scavengers and Garage Attendants Pension Trust Fund that the fund is in endangered status for the plan
year beginning October 1, 2011. 39. The Company Group has received the Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund Actuarial Valuation and Review as of April 1, 2011, which states that . . . the current funded percentage of 80.7%
is projected to be less than 80% by April 1, 2012 . . . 40. The Company Group has received notice, dated April 24, 2012, from the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund that the fund was in critical status for the
plan year ending December 31, 2011. 41. The Company Group has received notice, dated April 27, 2012, from the Laborers National (Industrial) Pension Fund that the fund was in critical status for the 2011 plan year. 42. The Company
Group has received notice, dated April 16, 2012, from the Local 945 I.B.T. Pension Plan that the plan is in critical status for the plan year beginning January 1, 2012. 43. The Company Group has received notice, dated April 27, 2012,
from the Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund that the plan is in critical status for the plan year beginning January 1, 2012.

SCHEDULE 3.15(g) ERISA 1. Key Executive Employment and Severance Agreement by and
between Superior Services, Inc. and Joseph P. Tate, dated August 18, 1998, pursuant to which Mr. Tate is entitled to certain retiree medical benefits. In connection with this obligation, the Company pays quarterly insurance premium
payments to Time Insurance. In addition, Mr. Tate and the Company have an arrangement with Exec-U-Care for the processing of out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Tate submits his out-of-pocket expenses to Exec-U-Care, for which Exec-U-Care
invoices the Company on a monthly basis. Exec-U-Care charges an administrative fee for this arrangement. 2. Key Executive Employment and Severance Agreement by and between Superior Services, Inc. and Peter J. Ruud, dated August 15, 1995,
pursuant to which Mr. Ruud is entitled to certain retiree medical benefits. In connection with this obligation, the Company pays quarterly insurance premium payments to Wisconsin HIRSP. In addition, Mr. Ruud and the Company have an
arrangement with Exec-U-Care for the processing of out-of-pocket medical expenses. Mr. Ruud submits his out-of-pocket expenses to Exec-U-Care, for which Exec-U-Care invoices the Company on a monthly basis. Exec-U-Care charges an administrative
fee for this arrangement. 3. Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid Waste, Inc. and James M. Long, dated July 1, 2009, as amended February 2012. 4. Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid Waste,
Inc. and Michael F. Dougherty, dated July 1, 2009. 5. Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid Waste, Inc. and James M. Rooney, dated May 1, 2008. 6. Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid
Waste, Inc. and Mark A. Dennis, dated May 1, 2008. 7. The Retention Change of Control Agreements with Raphael B. Bruckert, Christopher J. Steineck and Jay Katz and the Retention Change of Control Agreements listed on Schedules 3.15(a)(42) and
(43) provide for subsidized COBRA for various durations under various circumstances.

SCHEDULE 6.1(a) CONDUCT OF THE COMPANY 1. The items set forth on Schedule 6.21. 2.
Pursuant to a cash-pooling arrangement between Parent and the Company, the net cash generated or used by the Company (including various expenses incurred by Parent on behalf of the Company, such as insurance coverage, legal fees, interest expense
and management fees) flows between the Company and Parent on a daily basis. 3. The Company Group members with union relationships will be engaging in collective bargaining as may be required under applicable law and may enter into certain
agreements, including but not limited to renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement expiring in 2012 and negotiations for first Collective Bargaining Agreements, subject to the requirements of Section 6.1(a)(ii)(E). 4. Pursuant to the
Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid Waste, Inc. and James M. Long, dated July 1, 2009, as amended February 2012, Mr. Longs employment will terminate at Closing (unless amended pursuant to Item 5 on
Schedule 6.1(a)). 5. Parent may amend the Executive Employment Agreement by and between Veolia ES, Solid Waste, Inc. and James M. Long, dated July 1, 2009, as amended February 2012, prior to Closing, provided that any such amendment does not
impose any additional Liability on the Company. 6. Pursuant to the Employment Agreement by and between Onyx North America Corp. and Raphael B. Bruckert, dated January 1, 2002, and related Retention Change of Control Agreement, dated
July 11, 2012, Mr. Bruckerts employment will terminate at Closing. 7. Parent may make changes in the compensation payable or to become payable to any Non-Company Group Employee or may become a party to, establish, amend, terminate or
commit itself to the adoption of any compensation, severance, pension, retirement, profit-sharing, welfare benefit or other employee benefit plan or agreement or employment agreement with any Non-Company Group Employee prior to Closing, provided
that any such change does not impose any additional Liability on the Company. 8. The Company will continue to share the Sheboygan, WI space referred to in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement with Veolia ES Industrial Services, and will
negotiate a lease for such space to Veolia ES Industrial Service on the terms described in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement. 9. The Company will continue to share the Fort Atkinson, WI space referred to in Annex B of the Transition
Services Agreement with Veolia ES Industrial Services, and will negotiate a lease for such space to Veolia ES Industrial Service on the terms described in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement. 10. The Company will continue to allow Veolia ES
Industrial Services to utilize a portion of the property located in Glacier Ridge, WI for a storage tank and pump room as to referred to in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement and will negotiate a use and access agreement for such space
with Veolia ES Industrial Service on the terms described in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement.

11. Veolia ES Industrial Services will continue to use the first floor of the two-floor
premises of office space in Milwaukee, WI leased by the Company as referred to in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement. In the event Veolia ES Industrial Services is unable to negotiate a direct lease with the landlord for the first floor
space, the Company will negotiate a sublease for such first floor space with Veolia ES Industrial Service on the terms described in Annex B of the Transition Services Agreement. 12. The Company may sell or cause to be sold the following owned real
property as a result of a previous closure of such operating sites: (i) 51 N. Rangeline Road, Columbia, MO, 65205; (ii) 900 N. Centennial Street, Kirksville, MO, 63501; (iii) 23660 Audrain Road 416, Mexico, MO, 65265.

SCHEDULE 6.13 NAMES FOLLOWING CLOSING 1. The Veolia and Veolia Environnement trademarks
and VE drop logo set forth on Exhibit 6.13-1 attached hereto. 2. The Cyclotruck trademark registered in the United States to Veolia Propreté SA set forth on Exhibit 6.13-2 attached hereto. Date of registration:
July 7, 2009 (for 10 years) Registration number: 3649414 Classes 12, 37 and 39 3. The Onyx trademark and logo owned by Veolia Propreté and protected in the US under the following classes, as set forth on Exhibit 6.13-3 attached hereto:
a. Cal 37. Street and Highway Cleaning; Equipment for Graffiti Removal Repair Services; Removal of Graffiti from Buildings, Walls, Vehicles; Waste Collection Services; Operation of Waste Disposal Sites and Waste Dumps. b. Cal 39. Transportation of
Waste and Scrap by Truck or Train; Storage of Waste and Scrap. c. Cal 40. Material Treatment of Waste and Scrap; Recycling of Waste and Scrap; Incineration of Waste and Scrap; Recycling of Waste and Scrap; Incineration of Waste and Trash. 4. The
Turning waste into a resource slogan, property of Veolia Propreté.

The United States of America CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PRINCIPAL REGISTER The Mark shown in this certificate has been registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the named registrant. The records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that an application for registration of the Mark shown in this Certificate was filed in the Office; that the
application was examined and determined to be in compliance with the requirements of the law and with the regulations prescribed by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and that the Applicant is entitled to registration of
the Mark under the Trademark Act of1946, as Amended. A copy of the Mark and pertinent data from the application are part of this certificate. To avoid CANCELLATION of the registration, the owner of the registration must submit a declaration of continued use or excusable non-use between the fifth and sixth years after the
registration date. (See next page for more information.) Assuming such a declaration is properly filed, the registration will remain in force for ten (10) years, unless terminated by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
(See next page for information on maintenance requirements for successive ten-year periods.) Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
Requirements in the First Ten Years* What and When to File: First Filing: A Declaration of Continued Use (or Excusable Non-use), filed between the 5th and 6th years after the registration date. (See 15 U.S.C. §1058; 37 C.F.R.
§2.161.) Second Filing: A Declaration of Continued Use (or Excusable Non-use) and an Application for Renewal, filed between the 9th and 10th years after the
registration date. (See 15 U.S.C. §1058 and §1059; 37 C.F.R. §2.161 and 2.183.) Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods* What and When to File: A Declaration of Continued Use (or Excusable Non-use) and an
Application for Renewal, filed between each 9th and l0th-year period after the date when the first ten-year period ends. (See 15 U.S.C. §1058 and §1059; 37 C.F.R. §2.161 and 2.183.) Grace Period Filings* There is a six-month grace period for filing the documents listed above,
with payment of an additional fee. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will NOT send you any future notice or reminder of these filing requirements.
Therefore, you should contact the USPTO approximately one year prior to the deadlines set forth above to determine the requirements and fees for submission of the required filings. NOTE: Electronic forms for the above documents, as well as information regarding current filing requirements and fees, are available online at the USPTO web site: www.uspto.gov YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED
ABOVE DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS. * Exception for the Extensions of Protection under the Madrid Protocol: The holder of an international registration with an extension of protection to the United States must file, under slightly different time periods, a Declaration of Continued Use
(or Excusable Non-use) at the USPTO. See 15 U.S.C. § 1141k; 37 C.F.R. §7.36. The renewal of an international registration, however, must be filed at the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, under Article 7
of the Madrid Protocol. See 15 U.S.C. §1141j; 37 C.F.R. §7.41.